GA HTAI CHYUM ENGLISH, KACHIN, MYANMAR ......ahkaw ahkang jashai tawn nga maq ai. Panglong Agreement...

1

2017 Volume III, No. III Established 2015.

GA HTAI CHYUM (DICTIONARY) ENGLISH, KACHIN, MYANMARBai jenjep hpungdim datManmaw HkawnManmaw Hkawn

MAJAN

Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) Komiti kaw nna, galaw shapraw ngut da sai Ga Htai Chyum (English-English-Kachin-Myanmar Standard Dictionary) a ntsa jenjep sa wa na matu, Wunpawng Mungdan Shanglawt Kongsi kaw nna,11.11.2014 ya shani Magam Order shapraw ai hte Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) Jenjep Komiti hpaw shabawn da ai lam hpe mu chye lu ai. No. 1. Lang na Komiti ni:-1. Du Kaba Wa Na Yaw Htung (KIC) Ningbaw2. Du Kaba Pauhkyi Zau Hpan (DLR)3. Sara Kaba Maran Brang Di (HLD)4. Sara Kaba Wujik La (Ed.D)5. Salang Kaba San Htoi Mun (TMD)6. Sara Kaba Htingnan La (HkRD)7. Salang Kaba Lagawng Tawng La (DGA)8. Du Kaba Kumhtat Brang Seng (MKD)9. Du Kaba Jum Gam Awng (SMD)10. Du Kaba Kadung Tu Awng (H.D)11. Du Kaba Wara Naw Tawng (MJD)12. Saranum Sumlut Bawk Hkawn (HLD)13. Du Jum Lahpai Zau Tang (KIC)14. Aten dawchyen shanglawm ai:-

a. Du Kaba Zau Awng (DLR)b. Sara Kaba Gam Maw (Ed. D) ni rai ma ai.

H PAJ IMangai Ngai Wa Sai

Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu (Maija Yang)Janmau Shagrau hteq 20 Ning Hpring

Chyeju Shakawn Hpawng Galaw

Hparat Panglai Reporter

May shata 18 yaq, 2017, Maija Yang e nga ai Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu htaq, janmau

shagrau hteq Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu 20 ning hpring chyeju shakawn hpawng hpe galaw maq ai. Jawngma marai (Pre-college 132, Diploma in Education 34, Diploma in TESOL 29, PGDE 13) ni hpe shanhte hteq seng ang ai hpaji janmau ni hpe Jawng-up kaba (Rector) Dr. Lahpai Hkun Seng (Ph.D) wa, shagrau jawq uq ai. Jawng aq sumtang hpe Ms. Lahpai Nang Htang (Vice President - Academic) wa tangshawn

Naga Wondin (June 9, 2017)6 NING HPRING SHANI

Ndai majan 6 ning hpring shani, myu hte mungdan hpe makawp maga let hkrat sum mat sai KIA Hpyenla magrau grang ai

share shagan ni hpe hkungga jaw nngai law. Bai hpyen a majaw, jamjau hkrum nga ai ni hpe mung, Madu Karai Kasang shaman ya u-ga, karum shingtau ya u-ga ngu akyu hpyi ya nngai law.

Hkrak nga yang majan gaw 56 ning rai wa sai re. Raitim, ya kru ning hpring ngu ai gaw Myen ni Wunpawng myusha ni hpe shamyit kau na nga, 1994 hta simsa lam ta-masat mahkret da ai hpe je kabai kau nna, bai aja awa majan hpaw wa ai shani rai nga ai. Myen ni a nga manga hpyen n-gun yawng hpe lang nna kasat bang ai majan re. Dai majan hpe, Wunpawng myusha ni dang sai ngu, ngai sawn ai re.

Hpa majaw nga yang, Myen ni dawdan ai gaw Wunpawng myusha ni hpe laban bat mi hta shamyit kau na nga nna majan kasat hpang wa sai re. Shanhte sawn ai gaw 2009 ning August shata hta Kukang

Laikaman (16) de Laikaman (4) de

Laikaman (21) de

2

Established 2015. Volume III, No. III 2017

dik masha ni hpe "Backward Classes" (B.C) hku, masat tawn nna constitution e makawp maga tawn hkrum nga ai. Anhte bum nga masha amyu ni mung, Myen Tatmadaw hpyen shadip magam e garan ginghkaq shamying masat tawn ya ai category amying hpe hkap lah nga gaq ai. Lachyum gaw, anhte ni nan hkap lah, yau lah, jailang nga sai. Ndai satlawat htaq, mungh masa ahkaw ahkang jashai tawn nga maq ai. Panglong Agreement ahkaw ahkang madang nah hteq, shai matwa nga sai. Taiyintah ngu ai hpe Myen ni gaw "N lawq amyu" (lu-nesuq, minority) hpan hpe tsun garan tawn ai, rai nga ai. Myen gaw, "Lawq Amyu" (lu-myasuq, majority) ngu lah, masat tawn nga ai. Kachin zawn re amyu ni gaw, kaja-wa nan, n lawq amyu pang category deq, yuq hkrat nga sagaq ai. Ndai htaq, yu-maya rawtmalan magam gun hpyen jaubu usa kaba ni tsun shaprawq wa wa re ai aga gaw, "Anhte Kachin ni Myen hpyen hpe hkrit majah ra ai htaq, grau nna shadaq daq hkrit hkat ra, majah hkat ra ai gaw, dik laq sai!" ngu ai, rai saq. Japan Fascist hpe hkap kasat kau dat lu ai madang daram, bai n du lu matwa sai mahtai langai mung, ndai rai nga sai. Dai kawq, Myen hpe kasat ai rawtmalan wuhpung ni shadaq daq mung, hkrit hkat, majah hkat ra ai satlawat ni mung, ayan e ntawq ntsang rai nga ai. Galaw lu ai Kachin ni gaw sumtsan gah deq htawq ayai du shajang nga ai zawn, njin nngut ai ni gaw IDP Camp prat hteq, htawt-sit htawtnawt shakut sharang, aten alar shalai nga nga ai satlawat ni gaw, Kachin aq manpaq mabyin masa tsindam mung, rai nga ai. Dai IDP Camp htaq nga lawm ai ni gaw, gumgai, dinglar, num, ma kaji ni sha, ngam mat nga ai. Miwa hkran deq sha pyi, jarit shingtawt nna nga hkawm mat ai brang ram, hkawn zet ni manuq manaq

Kachin amyusha ni kahkin gumdin ninggun wa jaq dik aten langai nga laiwa sai. Dai gaw, mungkan majan kaba lahkawng (IIWW) e, Bogyoke Aung San (B.I.A) woishang wa ai Japan Fascist hpyen ni hpe Jinghpaw mungh kawq nna Japan Fascist hpyenman abaw ninghtang gayin gawt shayuq kau dat ai majan aten, rai nga ai. Dai daram, Kachin amyusha ting atsam marai ninggun kaba wadat bang ai satlawat hpe hpangdaw deq n mu gar yu mat sai law! Ndai ninggun atsam marai kaba hpe Bogyoke Aung San pyi, shari laiwa nuq ai majaw, ahkyak namnak tawn laiwa sai re. Kachin ni Japan Fascist hpyen hpe kasat gawt dauyin nut jawq kau dat ai majaw, Kachin amyusha ni "Jinghpaw Mungh" ngu ai hpe lu masat daidawq lah manuq ai. Maren mara rap-ra ai hku nna munghpawm Myen mungh hpe chyawm gawgap sai. Dai shaloi, Kachin, Shan, Chin ni hpe "Bum Nga Masha" (tawngtan-tah) ngu wa masai. Bum Nga Masha (tawngtan-tah) amyu hteq Palayang Nga Myen amyu (Pyimaq, Proper Burma) ni munghpawm hpe chyawm gawgap dat manuq ai. British colony prat e, bum nga masha amyu ni aq lamugah hpe gumhpawm nna "Frontier Areas" ngu wa masai. Myen nga lamugah hpe gaw, "Proper Burma" ngu tawn maq ai. Proper Burma lamugah hpe gaw, British shadip magam ni dantawk jumtek uphkang tawn nhtawm, Frontier Areas (Kachin, Shan, Chin) ni hpe gaw Myen hpe up ai zawn, dantawk n re ai satlawat hkrang (indirect British rule) hteq, uphkang wa maq ai. Dai majaw, "Kachin Hill Regulation, Chin Hill Regulation, Federated Shan States Act hteq Burma Act" ngu nna dai prat constitution nga wa sai re. Myen Tatmadaw hpyen shadip magam lak-htak aten e, ndai "bum nga masha" (tawngtan-tah) ni hpe "Taiyintah" bai ngu wa manuq ai. Taiyintah hpe English laikasi hku nna gaw, "Ethnic" bai ngu nga maq ai. Dai hku nna mung, Myen mungh rawtmalan wuhpung ni lang nga manuq ai. Miwa shadip magam ni gaw, "Shausu Minsu" ngu tawn nga ai. Miwa (Hansu) htaq lai nna ngam ai amyu 56 ni yawng hpe "Shausu Minsu" (N lawq Amyu) ngu tawn nga ai. Miwa hteq Myen mungh ni shanglawt lu la wa ai hkrang satlawat mung, lagaga rai nga ai. Miwa gaw, Myen mungh nah bawq "Panglong Agreement" n galaw ra nga ai. Bai, India Gala gaw, Singpho (Jinghpaw) zawn re n lawq amyu ni hpe "Scheduled Tribes" (S.T) ngu nna masat bang, tsun shaga nga ai. Gala Caste pang e, nem

sumpung nga ai. Dainih nah Kachin gawq-htawt gawq-nawt ni gaw, kabu hpar n rai nga ai. "Leq tawn ai mung mat mat, ju tawn ai mung hkat maq mat" ngu ai deq galeq taw nga sai. Dai zawn rawq, Karen rawtmalan ni mung, byin hkrum nga ai ninghkan, Shanglawt woiawn ai UNFC nah gumhtawn pru nhtawm, NCA taq-masat mahkret ai deq, gan matep tsap ra mat nga uq ai. Dai majaw, dainih nah mungh masa gamung dup wa ai shaloi, Taiyintah (N lawq amyu, Ethnic minority) wuhkya category hku nna shaga na kun? snr maren mara bum nga masha (tawngtan-tah) amyu madang hku, nawq shaga mai na kun? Myit yu hpar mung, wabyin nga gaq ai. Ndai gaw, 20th Century

AdviserJJ Lum Dau (Bangkok)Wang Hkang AwngEditor-in-ChiefB.D. MaranManaging EditorKareng Tu JaDeputy EditorDumsa Lawt Awng

Foreign CorrespondenceStella @ A Naw (Chiangmai)

Computer SectionSumlut Roi SengSumlut Bawk HkawnLayout hte DesignGumring Zau Mai (Hkaq Shang)Website MasterHkangda Brang San Awng (California) Manager forFinance and DistributionHkangda Hkam NyoiColumnistsAll staff members of HPLNContact InformationHparat Panglai Laika NauraLawk - V, Munglai Mazup,Laiza Mare, KachinlandEmail : [email protected] : www.h-panglai.com

Hparat Panglai Journal hpe laning mi htaq, kruq lang shaprawq ai. (In One Year Vol., 6 Issues)

2

Editorial Mahkuh

Ca r t o o n

Panglong hteq 21st Century Panglong yan aq ndum shami ninggam malar hkar shai matwa ai Myen political category rai nga ai. B.D. MaranEditor-in-Chief

3


33

2017 Volume III, No. II Established 2015.

MUNGDAN GALOI SIMSAQ NA?JJ Lum Dau

Hpan wa madu Karai Kasang a ra sharawng awng ai hta hkan nna, n bung ai myusha bawsang ni hpe hpan shalat dat ai majaw mungkan kaw n bung ai myusha ni nga pra wa sai. Raitimung, Myen hkawhkam ni hkamla ai gaw, mungdan langai kaw n bung ai masha ni nga pra sa wa ai majaw kahkyin gumdin lam n nga ai. Dai majaw Mungdan ngwipyaw simsa na matu Myenmung kaw Myen amyu langai sha nga ra ai, nga nna hkamla ai hte maren, kaga myusha ni hpe shamyit ai masing prat 1, 2, 3 nga nna masat nhtawm shamyit wa masai lam, shanhte nan ka da ai labau kaw mu lu nga ai. Ndai lam gaw Karai Kasang ra sharawng ai hte nhtan shai ai majaw jaja jawm ninghkap sa wa ra saga ai.

British ni Myenmung hpe zing la ai shani kaw nna, shing re ai ningmu hkring mat sai raitimung, Myenmung shanglawt bai lu ai shani kaw nna, prat 4 nga nna shamying nhtawm bumnga masha ni hpe matut shamyit wa ai rai yang, mungdan gaw grau zang ayai wa sai. Shing rai Ne Win gaw daru magam zing la nna bumnga masha ni hpe shamyit na ladat nnan shalat lang wa sai. NE WIN A MASING

Tinang gaw, Gen. Kyaw Zaw Pangsang kaw nnan du nga ai ten hta, ang sha-a rai, nhtoi galu hti nna rau yup rau sha hkrum shaga ai shaloi, Ne Win a masing hte seng nna grau hkrawnhkrang chyena hkra sanglang dan ai. Rawtmalan hpung ni agrin nga dingsa, bumnga masha ni hpe shamyit kau lu na n re. Mungmasha ni ngamu ngamai nga dingsa, rawtmalan hpyenla ningnan lu lahkawn nga dingsa, rawtmalan hpung ni hpe shamyit kau lu na n re. Dai majaw, yawshada tawn ai masing awngdang wa lu na matu, (1) Mungmasha ni yawng matsan kawsi hpanggara mat hkra ladat ningnan shaw ra na, (2) Rawtmalan hpung ni hpyenla ningnan n lu lahkawn hkra ramma ni yawng hpe nanghpam malu masha, AIDS ana hte jahten kau ra na, (3) Myenmung kaw lusu ai masha hte hpaji chye ai masha n nga hkra ladat tam ra na. Naw ngam nga ai lusu masha ni hte hpaji chye ai ni gaw hpyen shadip magam hpe madi shadaw ai ni rai ra na, (4) Sut masa gaw hkaq rai nna, ngah gaw rawtmalan hpung ni re. Shing rai hkaq hkyet mat jang, ngah ni n mai

hkrung nga sai. Dai shaloi, hpyen shadip magam gawgap dat ai rai yang ninghkap ai hpyen kadai n nga na sai majaw, aten kadun laman Myenmung gaw lusu, ngwipyaw simsa wa lu na re, nga ai.

Dai hpang kade nna yang, Ne Win shadip magam gaw mungdan ting na sutgan, jagumhpraw ni maja rai zing la kau sai. Ngamu ngamai ai masha ni hte hpaji chye ai ni maigan de hprawng pru mat masai. Hpakant, Monyein, Mogong hkan na ramma ni mung nanghpam malu masha hte AIDS ana ahkya a majaw aten kadun laman htenrun ma masai. Hpyen shadip magam hpe machyu nga ai ni hta jan nna, mungmasha ni yawng matsan kawsi shajang wa masai.

THEIN SEIN SHADIP MAGAM

Thein Sein gaw democracy hpringtsup ai shadip magam ningnan gawgap dat sai lam mungkan ting ndau dat ai hpe myit jawm shangsha wa masai. Raitimung democracy lam tsun yang, mungkan masha ni jawm madat ya na wa gaw, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi sha re. Rai yang, shi gaw htawng rawng nga ai majaw shi hpe shalawt dat sai. Suu Kyi gaw, mungdan kata, maigan hkan democracy hpringtsup ai Myen shadip magam ningnan gawgap dat sai lam ndau shabra hkawm ai hpe Thein Sein

gaw Suu Kyi a ga manawng hpe aja awa hkan madi shadaw lawm ai nga yang, mungdan masha ni, maigan masha ni yawng kabu gara jawm madi shadaw la masai.

Thein Sein shadip magam hpe jawm madi shadaw la ai mahtai gaw, Menmung hpe sutmasa pat shingdang tawn ai masing ni hpaw malang dat sai. Thein Sein hpe ASEAN a Chairman shatai ya wa sai. Myen mungmasha ni democracy ralata poi kaw shanglawm lu na sai kam let, mungdan chyam hkra mungmasa party ni hpaw shajang masai. Rawtmalan hpung nkau mung shanhte yawshada tawn ai pandung de du lu na sai nga kam let, mungdan ting gap hkat jahkring lam myit hkrum ai ta-masat jawm htu wa masai. Maigan sahti kaba ni mung Myenmung simsa na sai kam let, arang kaba ni shawbang wa masai. Shing-rai, Thein Sein shadip magam hpe jawm madi shadaw ai ni yawng gaw daini na ten hta yak ai manghkang ni hte hkrum nga masai. Kajasha nga yang, Thein Sein yawshada ai gaw, shi a masing lawan ladan aten dep awngdang la na matu shakut ai raitim,

masa amyu myu hta hkan nna dutdang ai lam nga wa sai.

Shing re ai ten hta, Hparat Panglai Journal kaw Thein Sein shadip magam kade ram ai lam shakawn ai zawn, laiwa sai ten ni hta Myen hpyen shadip magam gaw mungkan kaw ram htum ai shadip magam byin tai wa sai lam ka shadan shadawng wa ai hpe jawm mu hti wa sai. Gashadawn, mungkan majan lahkawng laman, Myen hpyen asuya gaw Japan, American, British ni hpe gara hku shalen la nhtawm Myenmung shanglawt lu hkra gara hku shangun sha wa sai lam, dai hpang sinna mungdan ni Myenmung hpe sutmasa lam pat shingdang tawn ai majaw, Myenmung ting kawsi hpanggara nga ai ten kaw na lawt wa lu na matu Miwa a ladi hpe akyu jashawn nna gara hku nsa sa laiwa lu ai zawn, India hte Russia ni hpe Myen ni gaw kade daram akyu gan jashawn wa yu sai lam hkaja lu ai shaloi, Myen ningbaw ningla ni kade ram ai hpe shakawn she, n htum rai wa sai. Maga mi hku yu ga nga yang, hkalem sha hkrum nga ai mungdan kaba ni hpe Hparat Panglai Journal hku nna tsawra shawang myit hte aten galu a matu sadi jaw let, shadum ai lachyum mung rai na re. Shing-rai mungdan kata na bumnga

4


masha ni hpe kahtap nna lang hte lang matut manoi hkalem shalen sha wa lu ai hpe gaw mauhpa n rai na re, ngu hkam la ai.

AUNG SAN SUU KYI A LARAM AI MADANG

Ndai ten hta mungkan ting, hpe shalen sha ai hta, Myen ningbaw ningla ni a hpaji pyi dingtawk rai n lang ai sha, Suu Kyi a laram ai hpe gawai ai ladat lang nna ginsup nga ai madang sha naw re ngu maram ai. Rai yang, dai ladat a hka-nawng kaw mungmasha ni kashawt bang ya ai zawn, mungkan kaw ram htum ai super mungdan ni mung jawm di hkrat bang nga masai. Raitimung, Suu Kyi a laram ai manu gaw mungdan kata kaw akyu n hkamsha ai zawn, mungkan a matu mung tsepkawp akyu n hkamsha lu ma ai hpe asansha jawm mu lu nga ga ai. Dai zawn, byin wa ai gaw aten ram daw na wa sai majaw, Suu Kyi gaw shi shakut wa ai mahtai a ntsa kaw nhtang yu maram dat wu ai rai yang, mungkan a mungmasa pinra kaw shi ka manawt wa ai gaw, shi ra sharawng awng ai hku ka manawt ai n rai. Shi a director wa ka manawt shangun ai lahkam hte maren, ka manawt nga ai hpe dum wa nu ai.

Mungkan a sumlahkrung prinra kaw, Suu Kyi gaw actress, Min Aung Hlaing gaw actor, Than Shwe gaw director re majaw, actor yan actress tsun ai, ka manawt ai gaw director wa a matsun hte maren hkan shadik shatup nga ai hpe asansha Suu Kyi mu chye sai majaw actor wa apup hkyen ai hpe actress wa n kam hkam ya nu ai. Director gaw ndai sumla hkrung hpe shi yawshada tawn ai hte maren, awngdang wa lu na matu yak ai lam amyu myu pru wa nga sai hpe mu mada nga sai. Raitimung, myit hpe shaja tawn let lam htum ai ten du hkra matut shakut sa wa na masa nga ai. Ginchyum gara hku dat wa na, ngu ai gaw shinggang sumpan pa (screen) kaw matut yu la ga.

RAWTMALAN HPUNG NI A SHAWNGLAM

Rawtmalan hpung ni gaw, shanhte hpe sinpraw mungdan ni sa garum la na ma ai nhten! Sinna mungdan ni sa garum la na ma ai nhten! nga nna myit mada nga na ma ai. Kajasha nga yang, gara mungdan mung adan aleng sa garum na n re. Hpa majaw nga yang, sun madu gaw sun hpe jin jin hkyen tawn nna tinang ra sharawng ai hkai nmai nli hpe gat hkai dat yang sha, tinang ra sharawng ai nsi naisi ni shu la lu na rai nga ai. Tinang ra sharawng ai mungdan kaw nna garum shingtau la shangun mayu ai rai yang mung, dai mungdan gaw, tinang hpe myit shangsha wa hkra tau nna ganawn mazum tawn ra ai hpe jawm myit dum nga chyalu re. Madung gaw, tinang nli n hkai tawn marang rai n htu yang, mahkrai tauhkrau hkrai ra ai hpe jawm dum chyalu re. Raitimung, shing re ai masing ni hkyen lajang tawn ai lam rai n nga ai rai yang, nlaw htum tinang shada a atsam hpe machyu hkat, shada hpaji jaw hkat ai hpe manu tawn hkat nhtawm, kahkyin gumdin ai n-gun hte jawm htuje la ra sai ngu mu ai.

Ndai zawn re ai ten hta, shada hkrum bawng dawdan shagu, shada a lapran kaw mara shagun ai myit, pawt singdawng ai myit, nju ndawng ai myit hpe koiyen kau nna, simsa ai myit hte hkamla ai lam hpe shalat la nna, bawng jahkrup hkat ai masing gaw manu rawng ai ningmu hte mahtai hpe shalat la na matu npawt nhpang byin tai wa shangun mai ai. Kalang marang grai ahkyak ai ningmu ni shalat la na matu bawng jahkrup ai hta, Kaniya, Tsaya, Lagu lagut wa, mahkrum madup lu ai gumgai dingla ni kaw na laklai nna manu rawng ai ningmu ni lu wa chye ai majaw ningmu shalat ai bawngban lam hta kadai hpe mung, n mai yu tawt kau ai hpe sakse amyu myu hku mu wa shajang saga ai hpe dum ra ga ai.

LADAT TAM AI MASING

1. Rawtmalan hpung ni yawng jawm ra sharawng ai ladat,2. Yawng a matu kaja dum ai ladat,3. Yawng a matu rap-ra dum ai ladat ni lang ai hte awngdang ai lam n lu wa ai rai yang, yawng a matu htaphtuk dum ai ladat lang ai hte awngdang wa mai na re.

GINCHYUM

Miwa mungdan gaw, mungkan ting n ra sharawng ai Communist ladat lang let, awngdang wa masai. “Rawtmalan ai gaw, taihpyen wa hpe dang kau lu jang, tinang lang mayu ai tara hpe jahtuk lang na matu re” nga ai. Tinang lang na tara hpe shawng jahting tawn ai rai yang, rawtmalan lam galaw na matu jut shagu kaw na chyinghka yawng hpe pat shingdang la ai lachyum de gale wa chye ai rai nna, taihpyen wa a npu kaw madat mara dingyawm mat na chyinghka langai sha nga sai lam tsun wa yu masai. Rawtmalan ten hta tinang ra sharawng ai ladat, kaja dum ai ladat, rap-ra dum ai ladat ni hpe machyu na malai, kayin gaye htaphtuk dum ai ladat hpe lata lang wa ai rai yang, aten kadun laman rawtmalan masing awngdang wa nna, mungdan hpe damlada rawtjat ai madang hte gawgap la lu masai.

Anhte mungdan mabyin masa a ntsa, lahta kaw maram wa ai hta hkan nna ginchyum dat ga nga yang, Myen hpyen shadip magam gaw shi hkrai awngdang la na matu shakut nga ai. Raitimung, rawtmalan hpung ni Yehowa jaw da ya ai machye machyang hpe jahtuk lang ai rai yang, ginchyum dat ai kaw tinang myusha ni a matu, Yehowa jaw da ya ai mungdan hpe prattup jawlup adan aleng masat la lu u ga matu, myusha ni a Ningbaw Ningla ni gaw damlada ai myit hte woiawn sa wa nga ai kaw, myusha ni yawng atsam htum hte hkan shadik shatup sa ga, ngu nna Nu Wa Hpu Nau ji nban yawng hte hpe lajin dat nngai law.

ai. Janmau shagrau jawq mungga hpe Dr. Lahpai Hkun Seng (Jawng-up) gaw, English hku nna tsun shaga matwa nhtawm, Sr. Kb. Sumlut Gam (KIO Standing Committee Member, Shawnglam Mungh Masa Jasat Hpung) gaw Kachin hku nna mungga htawn matwa ai. Kachin ahtik labau htaq, Kachin secular dakkasu e, Kachin jawngma lawq dik hpe hpaji janmau shagrau lu ai, galaw dat lu ai rai nga sai. Shanglawt shadip magam - Hpaji Mgam Dap Lit-hkam Sr.Kb. Chyin-yu Hkun Nawng ni aq shakut shajaq wa ai

yiq-ngam nah nsi naisi ni rai nga sai. Ndai gaw, ahkyak dik nga sai amyusha gawsharawt magam bungli bungsi nan, rai nga sai. Ndai gaw Kachin mungkan htaq nga pruwa ai shawng ningnan lang nah secular dakkasu mung, rai nga sai. Ndai hpawng lamang htaq, laga dakkasu, Kolik ni deq nah professor ni, Miwa Gumsan Mungdan deq nah shari shadang nga magam manam ni, KIO Shanglawt ginjawq salang ni hteq jawngma kanu kawa ni sa du shagrau shanglawm ya nga maq ai. Shagrau kabu lawm ai masha marai (1. KIO Ginjaw

Dinggrin Salang Sara Kaba Sumlut Gam hte Hpaawn marai 6, 2. Ginjaw Hpaji Dap Lit Hkam hte Hpaawn marai 10, 3. Shinggan manam yawng marai 191, 4. Jawngma dingsa yawng marai 110, 5. Jawngma Kanu Kawa yawng marai 408) du nga ai. Sa shanglawm ai ni yawng hpe mung, shanih shat mah mi hteq alum alah rai, hkalum dat maq ai. Hpang shanih May shata 19 yaq e, 8:00 am aten kaw nna jawngma dingsa ni aq hkrumzup bawngban hpawng hpe mung, matut galaw nga maq ai.

Laikaman (1) "Hpaji Mangai Ngai Wa Sai" matut

5


55

Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu hpe 1997 ning htaq, Sara Hpaji Sharin Jawng (Teacher Training College) hku nna hpawq hpangwa sai. 2009-2010 hpaji ladawq e, Sara Hpaji Hkawlik (Teacher Training College) madang deq bai sharawt hpawq jat lah masai. 2014 ning kawq, Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu (Institute of Education) madang deq bai matut sharawt hpawq jat tawn matwa nga ai. 1997 ning kawq nna 2017 ning du hkra, sharin lah matwa ai jawngma ni gaw, marai 1667 du nga ai. Dai ni htaq, alar gaw marai 408 rai nhtawm, anum ni gaw marai 1259 lawm nga maq ai.

Amyusha Hpaji Dakkasu kawq sharin lah lu nga sai hpaji ni gaw -

(1). PGDE (Post Graduate Diploma in Education)(2). Dip. Ed (Diploma in Education)(3). Diploma (Foreign Languages)(4). B.A (TESOL)(5). B.Ed (Education)(6). B.A (English)(7). B.A (Leadership)(8). B.A (Political Science)(9). B.B.A (Business Administration)(10). Pre-College Program(11). Cambridge English Program(12). Vocational Education Program ni rai nga ai.

KACHIN AMYUSHAB.D. Maran

HPJ : Vol.III, No.II nah matut -

Ginru ginsa satlawat hteq sawk dinglik bungli wriq-ngam

Kachin ginru ginsa gaw, daipawt daiwang langai kawq nna yuq hkratwa nhtawm, ginru ginsa lamugah gigi gawq gawq hpyenhpyen papa masa satlawat ntsa htaq, damdam papa shayan dat, wa-keq chyum dat, bai gayin dabat dat, ginru ginsa wa-kahtap matep dat, kabrat shayan ruhkrat matwa ai hkrang ni, rai shajang nga ai. Ndai mabyin masa htaq hkan nna Kachin rusai hpanshan ni nah rupawt de guji guyang ahkrai lungwa aran na gaw chyipchyap, rai nga ai. Ndai kawq, ginru ginsa hpe tsun ai n re; rusai dajuq sumhpawng ningpawt hpe tsun mayu ai re. Lachyum gaw, matep gayau kahtap ahkang matwa ai daw ni hpe rusai garan ginghkaq lah na hpaji ladat htunglai sumhpa hteq hpungtang hpaji lakung lakap arung arai ni mung, shalawm ra wa nga ai. Kachin gamung hpe maigan hpaji machyoi ni alai shaprawq madun tawn ai hkrang gaw bumba batba ntsa hkrang satlawat, rai nga ai. Rusai gamung lawnglam hpe dinglik hkajah (case study) hkrang htaq, amyu bawqsang rusai katalam guji guyang hpe, “kade nde” (katalam hte shinggan maigan nah hpaji ningmu) hpaji machyoi nga ai ni, hpungtang hpaji hpanhpan masa (scientific methodology) hku, dinglik hkajah aran tawn pruwa lu na gaw, “bungli wriq-ngam” (study field) kaba langai mi hku nawq, rai nga ai. Hpan magah mi hku sha, dele tawn ai rai yang gaw, hkumtsup na loi tsan-gang nga ai.

Tsun shaga aga hpe linguistics hpaji hteq sawk dinglik yu lam

Maru (Lawngwaw), Azi (Zaiwa), Lashi (Lachik) hte Myen (Burmese, Arm) ni gaw, “wan” (fire, rD;) hpe, “mi” ngu nga ma ai. Maru, Azi, Lashi ni “wan” (rD;) hpe “mi” ngu nna tsun shaga nsen pruwa ai gaw, Tibetan tsun shaga nsen aga “me” kawq nna lah tsunlang hkratwa ai, rai nga ai. Yunnan Tibetan ni mung, dai “wan” (rD;) hpe sha, shanhte tsun shaga aga hku “ngi” ngu nna tsun nga ma ai. Ao Naga ni mung, “wan” (rD;) hpe “mi” ngu nna nsen pru nga ma ai. Meithei (Manipuri) ni mung, “wan” (rD;) hpe “mei” ngu nna bai tsun nga ma ai. Lahu ni mung, “wan” (rD;) hpe “ami” ngu nga ma ai. Rawang ni mung, “wan” (rD;) hpe “htami” ngu nga ma ai. Mosso

1 Namunar (example, erlem) ngu ai gaw, Myen amyu tsun shaga ai aga gasi n re. Ndai namunar ngu ai gaw, Indian Hindhi amyu tsun shaga aga, rai nga ai.

(Nachi) ni mung, “wan” hpe “mi” ngu nga ma ai. Ndai mabyin masa ni yawng htaq, aga gasi gahkum shachyawq ai hkrang (forming of constructing word frame) e, “M” (r) nsen kawq, sharawt tawn ai nsen hkrang hkrai, rai nga ai. Yawng gaw Tibetan nah ginrawn tsun matwa ai hkrai sha, rai nga ma ai. Myen tsun shaga nsen aga kawq nna lah lang, ginlen tsun shaga ai aga, n rai nga ai.

Jinghpaw ni mung, Myen ni “lan” (road, vrf;) ngu ai hpe, “lam” (vrf) ngu nga ai zawn, Indian Hindhi amyu nsen mahkuh aga htaq gaw, “rasta” ngu nga ma ai. “Lan, lam” hte “rasta” ngu ai gasi gahkaw gawshachyawq ai hkrang gaw, n madawm mayawm shai nga ai. Ndai gaw “Tibeto-burma hte Indo-European” la-pran nah satlawat hpe shingdaw danlu na matu, hkrang “kasi kamang” namunar1 langai shingdaw dan ai, rai nga ai. “Lam” hte “lan” ngu ai yan hpe madat shingdaw dat yang mung, ganoi sawt sawt, raihkat nga ma ai. Gasi shachyawq ai hkrang masa gaw langai sha, rai shajang nga ma ai. Raitim, ningpawt de bai gawn alai lungwa dat yang, “lam” (road) ngu ai gaw Tibetan ni tsun shaga nga ai nsen aga “lam” ngu ai hte nsen bungpreq hkat ai sha n-gah, lachyum mung langai sha, rai nga ai. Kahtap tsun mayu ai gaw Tibetan ni mung, “lam” (road, vrf) ngu ai hpe “lam” ngu nna sha, tsun nga ma ai. Ndai htaq, Jinghpaw ni tsun shaga nga ai “lam” gaw, Myen tsun shaga nga ai “lan” (vrf;) nah, lah lang hkratwa ai n re zawn, dai kawq nna yuq hkratwa ai gasi mung, n rai nga ai. Jinghpaw hte Myen ni na tsun shaga aga ni mung, Tibetan ni kawq nna ginrawn lah lang hkratwa ai zawn, “Maru, Azi, Lashi” ni tsun shaga nga ai “wan” (rD;) hpe “mi”(rD) ngu ai hku nna Myen ni mung tsun nga ai “mii” (rD;) gaw Tibetan gasi kawq nna ginrawn ginlen tsun shayan hkratwa ai, rai nga ai.

Jinghpaw ni lang ai gasi gahkum ni mung, Myen ni lang ai hkan kawq, lawm nga ai. Gashadawn, Jinghpaw ni tsun shaga nga ai “ngah” (fish) hpe Myen ni mung “ngah” (ig;) ngu nna tsun nga ma ai. Ndai “ngah” ngu ai gasi hpe chyawmlang ai ninghkan, Myen mung Jinghpaw ni kawq nna re ngu n tsunlu shi ai zawn, Jinghpaw

6


hpanshan ni mung Myen ni kawq nna re, ngu tsun na yak nga ai. Myen hte rauhpawng rau-nga raude n nga ai shara na mabyin langai hpe dinglik maram yu ga. Kachin lamugah kawq Jinghpaw ni, English tsun shaga aga hku “read” ngu ai hpe “htih” (hti ai) ngu nga ma ai. India mungh, Arunachal Pradesh – Changlang Dist., Bordum – Wahkyetna kahtawng kawq nna Delhi University e “Law” (Tarah Upadi) hpaji sharin hkajah nga ai dakkasu jawngma “Jawra Maio Singpho” gaw, shanhte Singpho ni mung “htih ai” (laika hti ai) ngu ai hpe, “hpat ai” ngu nna tsun shaga nga ma ai hpe, tsundan pruwa ai. “Jawra Maio Singpho” gaw Myen tsun shaga aga n chye ai Jinghpaw (Singpho) rai nga ai. Singpho ni “htih ai” hpe “hpat ai” ngu ai gaw, Myen ni tsun shaga nga ai “hpat” (read, zwfonf) hte nsen marensha, rai nga ma ai. Ndai bungpreq ai hpe sha, mahtaq malawk nhtawm, India mungdan nah Singpho gaw Myen amyu rusai dinghku nah re, ngu tsun madiq ladawn na yak nga ai. Masha jahpan lawq ai amyu ni nah “htunghking, tsun shaga aga” ni galup matwa lu ai mabyin masa nga ai raitim, tsun shaga aga hpe ahkrai sagawn ai shaloi, tsun shaga nga ai masha jahpan kaba hpe wa-myit shalawm shingran dat yang, kalanglang shut chye ai mahtai mung, pruwa lu nga ai. (Ndai gaw gamung bungli wriq-ngam hpe aran ai shaloi, dum sadiq ra ai hpaji lawnglam langai, rai nga ai). Kachin - Jinghpaw gaw “htih ai” hpe “hpat ai” ngu nna bai n tsun shaga nga ai. N lang yu nga ma ai. Jinghpaw ni Myen aga tsun shaga ai shaloi sha, “hpat” (zwf) ngu ai hpe tsun shaga ai, rai nga ma ai. Jinghpaw ni “htih ai” ngu ai hpe, lachyum lahkawng hku lang nga ma ai. Lachyum langai htaq, laili laika hpe htih ai rai nhtawm, ngam ai laga lachyum kawq gaw sawn hkum ginlam ni hpe “hti ai” (count; a&wGufonf/ Gumhpraw htih ai; ndai hpe sharara hkan htaq, “ru ai” ngu nna mung, tsun nga ai.) ni, rai nga ai.

Kachin htaq mung, bugah tsun shaga aga (dialect) hpanhpan nga ai. Dai zawn, Lisu e shanhte tsun shaga nga ai Lisu bugah aga masum nga ai. Nung-Rawang htaq, shanhte bugah aga hpan ‘kruq’ (6) nga ai. Maru, Lashi, Azi ni hkan mung, shanhte hte seng ang ai bugah tsun shaga mahkuh hpanhpan ni nga shajang ma ai. Maliq-Nmai Waqlawng de, kahtawng langai din jang, aga nsen manawng shai matwa ai shara ni nga ai zawn, tsun shaga aga shai matwa ai mung, nga nga ai. Naga bum deq gaw, kahtawng langai hte langai tsun shaga aga shai matwa ai

nga ai. Tsun mayu ai gaw, Lisu (Lisaw) hpe “Lahu, Akha” hpung ni hte rausha gin-yan masat tawn nga ai. “Maru, Azi, Lashi” ni hpe gaw “Tibeto-burma” kata na “Burmese-Lolo, Burmese” dinghku gawk kawq, ginghkaq bang tawn nga ai. Myen (Burmese) mung, “Burmese-Lolo, Burmese” dinghku gawk htaq, lawm nga ai. 1911 ning e “Azi, Lashi, Maru” ni hpe, “Jinghpaw-Myen gayau” (Kachin-Burma hybrids) hku, ginghkaq garan tawn nna 1921 ning htaq, bai rai yang, Myen dinghku gawk kawq bang shalawm tawndah nga ma ai.3

Ndai lawnglam ni hpe ningshawng dele buklik galaw pruwa ai jauman machyoi ni mung, sinnaq mungdan de nah myimut shanhpraw hpaji machyoi ni, rai nga ma ai. Myen hpaji machyoi ni mung, shawng na myi-mut machyoi ni alai shaprawq dinglik amya ayai tawn ai hpaji sutgan ni htaq, bai mahtaq nna tsun pruwa ai, rai nga ma ai.

Tsun shaga ai aga ni, ginrawn hkratwa ai mabyin nga ai; ndai zawn nga nna machyoi (scholars) ni “Burmese-Lolo, Burman” dinghku gawk htaq bang tawn ai nga tim, “Maru, Lashi, Azi, Nung-Rawang, Lisu” ni hkan mung, tinang nah kata shagu e tinang bugah tsun shaga aga ni hpanhpan nga shajang ai hpe mulu nga ai. Shanhte ni nah buga tsun shaga aga ni gaw, sharara kawq, n chyena (unintelligible) hkat ai shara ni mung, nga nga ma ai.

Azi (Zaiwa) ni tsun shaga nga ai aga htaq, “Maru hte Jinghpaw” tsun shaga aga ni malawng rawng nga ai zawn, Tibetan tsun shaga aga (Myen tsun shaga aga hte sawt sawt nsen nga nna Tibetan rusai de na lah lang hkratwa ai gasi ga-ngau) ni hpe mulu nga ai.4Azi

2 - Lawang Li, “Jinghpaw Wunpawng sha ni nga yu hkrat wa ai ahtik labau laika”, 1992, (manu-script and unpublished), P-12. - Htingbai Naw Awn, “Wunpawng Labau Ginshi”, (place, publisher and date unknown), P. 45-57. 3 Census of India – 1931, Volume-xi, Burma, Part-I, Report, P-180.4 - C. M. Enriquez, 1923, P-23.- H.R. Davies, “Yun-Nan” (The link between India and the Yangtze), 1909, Cambridge, P- (397, 356-361).- Ola Hanson, 1913, P-21. - E.R. Leach, “The Political Systems of Highland Burma”, 1954, The London School of Economics and Political Science, G. Bell and Sons, London, P-53. (Henceforth: E.R. Leach, 1954).And also see- J. George Scott, J.P. Hardiman, “Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan States”, Part-I, Volume-I, 1900, Rangoon, P. 660-668.- W.B.T. Abbey, “A manual of the Maru language”, 1899, Rangoon.- F.V. Clerk, “A manual of the Lawngwaw or Maru language”, 1911, Rangoon.- Ola Hanson, “Dictionary of Kachin Language”, 1906, Rangoon.

shara lawq nga ai. Hkang hpan (Chin-Naga) wuhpung htaq, tsun shaga aga grai lawq rawng nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. Shanhte shadaq daq pyi tsun shaga chyena yak matwa ai majaw, Naga shara hkan gaw, “Nagamese” (modern Naga tongue, lingua franca) hpe, lang nga ma ai. Jinghpaw kata htaq mung, bugah shara hkan nna shai shajang nga maq ai. Dik-kadik bai tsun ga nga yang, Hukawng palayang hkan, magwi hte kanbau bungli galaw, magwi rem ai ni, magwi hteq tsun shaga ai “Jinghpaw magwi gawt aga” (Jinghpaw professional elephant driver dialect) ni mung, nga nga ma ai. Gashadawn tsun ga nga yang, magwi rim ai wa hpe “hpanti” (hpandi), “a-get” (shawng de), but-sam (bat-sam), shuu shuu (&SL;&SL;), htat htat (bat bat), …. ni, rai nga ai. Magwi sawbai aga hpe tsun yang, magwi pyi myiprwisi hkrat pru nga ai. Magwi mung, shinggyim masha zawn, hkamshah chyena ai dusat du-myeng kawq, lawm nga ai. “Jinghpaw magwi gawt aga” gaw, Northeast India nah “Moamaria–Madawk” tsun shaga aga ni hteq matut ginrawn ai hpe mulu nga ai. Shinggyim masha hteq dusat du-myeng la-pran nah “Jinghpaw magwi gawt aga” gaw Hukawng palayang e, “magwi hteq galawluq galawshah ai Jinghpaw bugah aga” langai wa-byin nga ai hpe mulu nga ai.

A’chang (Mungsa, Maitha) tsun shaga aga ni htaq, Azi, Sam, Maru … aga ni gayau lawm nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. Azi hteq Lashi ni htaq mung, Maru hte Jinghpaw aga ni gayau lawm ai hpe mulu nga ai. Jinghpaw ni tsun shaga ai shanhte bugah aga ni hpe shara hteq shara nah ni chyena loi (intelligible) hkat nga ma ai. Tsun mayu ai gaw, Gauri Jinghpaw ni tsun shaga ai hpe Hukawng Jinghpaw ni chyena ya nga ma ai. Dai hte maren, Duleng Jinghpaw ni shaga ai hpe Htingnai Jinghpaw ni chyena ya nga ma ai. Kachin htaq, Jinghpaw tsun shaga aga gaw chyena malawng lawq ai aga (lingua franca) mung, wabyin nga ai.

Kachin ninggup labau htaq, “Nung-Rawang, Lisu, Jinghpaw, Maru, Azi, Lashi” ni gaw ningpawt daihpang langai kawq nna ginru ginsa hkratwa ma ai, ngu nna tsunhkai nga ai.2 Raitim, hpaji machyoi (scholars) ni gaw, Kachin htaq nah “Nung-Rawang hte Jinghpaw” ni hpe “Tibeto-Chinese” hpung kawq rawng ai “Tibeto-burma” htinggaw kata na dinghku gawk e bangtawn nga ai. Lisu hpe gaw, “Tibeto-burma” kata nah “Burmese-Lolo, Lolo” aga shaga ai dinghku gawk htaq, shalawm bangtawn

7


7

5 DNA: Deoxyribonucleic acid (the chemical in the cells of animals and plants that carries Genetic information and is a type of Nucleic Acid). (trsKd;qufADZ enf;ynm&yfjzifh avhvmqef;ppfjcif;/)6 Peter Kunstadter, 1967, P-79.7 Lisu gaw Tangsir hpe “Huchehpa” ngu ma ai. Huchehpa hkumhkrang hpraw nsam hpe dinglik yang, Nung Lungmi hte Lisu rusai htunghking gayau ai kumlar rawng nga ai. Tangsir num ni gaw Lisu num ni zawn, buhpun mawnsumli ai. Tangsir htunghking nsam gaw Lisu hte bung nhtawm, myit jasat, maubung mausa maka kumlar ni (ethos) gaw Nung Lungmi hkrang, rai nga ma ai. Please see B.D. Maran, 2010, P-50.

8 E.R. Leach, 1954, P-45.9 T.C. Hodson, “The Meitheis”, 1908, London, PP. 157-158. (Henceforth: T.C. Hodson, 1908).10 And also see for comperative study: J.T.O. Barnard, “A Handbook of the Rawang Dialect of the Nung Language”, 1934, Government Printing Stationery, Rangoon.

11 Ola Hanson, 1913, P-23.12 E.R. Leach, 1954, P-45.13 Ibid, P-59.14 R. Wilcox, “Memoir of a survey of Assam and the neighbouring countries executed in 1825-28”, As. Res. Xvii, 1832. (Selection of Papers (1873) reprinted in 1988, P-76).15 E.T. Dalton, “Descriptive Ethnology of Ben-gal”, 1872, Calcutta, P-10.16 S.N. Burua, 1991, P. 70-74.

ginru ginsa gaw, Lashi (Lachik) ni hte nini htephtep ngalai matwa ai ninghkan, shanhte tsun shaga ai aga ni hkan mung, Lashi tsun shaga aga sawt sawt re ai ni lawm rawng nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. Maliq-Nmai hkaqzup lahtaq magah de gaw Azi ni nga shanu ngam ai hpe n mu nga ai. Shanhte ni hpe, “Maliq-Nmai hkaqzup lawuq hteq lawuq-sinprawq lamugah” (Kachin state, Shan state, and Yunnan Province: Sapkhung Sam-Jinghpaw maduq uphkang lamugah) ni hkan, ginru ginsa chyam hkratbang nga maq ai. Azi gamung dup yang, Gauri Jinghpaw lawnglam hpe shingkawt (snr) shawq tawn kau n mai nga ai. Azi hte Gauri Jinghpaw gaw amyu rusai hku mung, htunghking hku mung, rumzup hkat nga maq ai. Dai majaw, amyu rusai hpanshan katalam hpe ginghkaq garan masan na gaw “DNA Test”5 hkinghkuh sha, nga na sai. Jinghpaw hku tsun shaga ai Gauri Jinghpaw aga hte Azi tsun shaga aga shaihkat ai mabyin nga tim, “amyu rusai lagaga re”, ngu tsun na yak nga ai. “Jangmaw-Jangma, Mahkaw-Mahka, Dawshi-Dashi, Azi Lahpai - Jinghpaw Lahpai (Gauri krung), ……” gamung htaq, Kachin amyu masha nah “htunghking, rusai, tsun shaga aga, ginru ginsa lawnglam, ... ni” hkumsumhpa rawng gayau nga ai.

Nung-RawangNung-Rawang gaw Kachin wuhpung kata nah rusai bawqhpan langai mi, rai nga ai. Kaja-wa tsun gaq nga yang, Rawang gaw Nung Lungmi bawqhpan tsun shaga (tongue) kawq nna bugah aga (dialect), rai nga ai hpe machyoi (scholar) ni madiq madun tawn nga maq ai.6 Nung Lungmi ni hpe shanhte makau grupyin hkan nga ai Sam (Shan) ni gaw “Khanung” ngu nna mung, tsun nga ma ai. “Rawang hteq Daru” bugah tsun shaga aga ni, shadaq daq chyena hkat na yak ai hpan (unintelligible), rai nga ma ai. Nung-Rawang rusai bawqhpan htaq, lawuq nah ni hpe mung, mulu nga ai.

(1). Daru (Nawkmung mayan grup-yin)(2). Tangsir (Huchehpa,7 Nmai

hkaqdung grup-yin)(3). Matwang (Putao grup-yin)

(4). Ding-ra (Alang Gah grup-yin)(5). Kwinhpang (Hkenhpang -

Hkawbude grup-yin), ….

Tsun shaga aga hku nga yang, Nung Lungmi ni gaw Jinghpaw tsun shaga aga ni htaq, grau nna Tibetan ni hte nihtep ai shadang grau kaba nga maq ai.8 Nung-Rawang rusai bawqhpan kata nah tsun shaga bugah aga ni, shadaq daq chyena hkat ai nga ai zawn, n chyena hkat ai mung, nga maq ai. Raitim, Tibetan hte ginrawn ai gasi gahkaw ni hkan gaw maren hkrai, rai nga maq ai. Sharara kawq gaw nsen manawng sha, loimi shaihkat ai, nga ai. Jinghpaw tsun shaga aga hku nna “ai (langai, ai-ma, one), ni (lahkawng, nit, two), masum (three), mali (four), manga (five), kruq (six), sanit (seven), matsat (eight), jahku (nine), shi (ten) ngu nna tsun ai ni hpe, Tibetan ni hku nna gaw “ching (one), nyi (two), sum (three), shi (four), nga (five), shuk (six), dum (seven), gya (eight), gu (nine), chyu (ten)” ngu nhtawm, tsun shaprawq shaga nga ma ai.9 Bai nna Rawang ni mung ndai hpe sha, “hti (one), anyi (two), asum (three), abyi (four), hpungnga (five), ashu (six), samyit (seven), ashat (eight), tagui (nine), htise (ten)” ngu nna tsun shaprawq lang nga ma ai.10 Rawang hte seng nna J.T.O. Barnard ka shalat ai laika e, “daw kaba No.3” kawq, “English-Rawang” gahtaichyum lawm nga ai. Dai htaq, “Jinghpaw, Sam, Myen, Miwa” tsun shaga aga ni kawq nna lah lang hkratwa ai rai yang, Rawang gasi gahkum (word) shingduq e “Chingpaw, Shan, Burmese, Chinese” ngu nna seng ang ai hku, ka shakap tawn ya nga ai. Myen hte sawt sawt bungpreq ai tsun shaga aga ni malawng gaw Tibetan nah hkrai, rai nga ai hpe sagawn chyelu nga ai. Jinghpaw hte Myen ni htaq, n rawng ai Tibetan tsun shaga aga gasi ni hpe “Nung-Rawang” ni hkan, mulu nga ai.

Nung Lungmi lawq malawng gaw Nmai hkaqdung apai ahkra lahkawng magah hkan, nga nga maq ai. Tangsir (Nmai hkaq – Nam Tamai kadit palayang) hteq Hopa ni nah tsun shaga aga gaw, Nung Lungmi buga tsun shaga aga, rai nga ai. Nung Lungmi ni “Putao palayang” (Khamti Long, Bor Khamti Valley) de ginru ginsa shangbang hkratwa ai aten ni htaq, Khamti Sam ni shanhte hpe

Khanung ni ngu nna mung, tsun shaga wa maq ai.11 Nung Lungmi ni gaw lataq hteq galaw samah shatsawm ai lataq hpaji htaq, kungkyang chyoichye ai ni, rai nga maq ai. Nung Lungmi ni gaw Khamti Sam ni hteq gayau nga ai zawn, Maru ni hteq mung nini htephtep nga hkratwa nga ai. Dai majaw, Nung Lungmi tsun shaga aga hkan, Sam hteq Maru gasi gahkaw ni lawm ai hpe mung, mulu ai.12 Nmai hkaq kadit hkan, Nung Lungmi hteq Maru ni gayau gaya ngade pra maq ai. Nung Lungmi hteq Jinghpaw ni nah lapran htaq, htunghking hteq tsun shaga aga ni ginrawn ai nga ai zawn, nihtep ai lawnglam ni mung lawq nga ai.13 Ndai hpe R. Wilcox mung, matut madiq shadaw sawk sagawn tsun tawn nga ai. Jinghpaw tsun shaga aga ngu ai htaq, Putao Duleng-Hkaqhkuh Jinghpaw nsen aga hpe tsun tawn nga ai. Ndai tsun shaga aga hpe “Singfo” (Singpho) hteq shingdaw masam tsun tawn nga ai.14

Edward Tuite Dalton tsun madiq ladawn ai htaq, “Khanung (Kunung) hteq Jinghpaw (Singpho) ni ningpawt magah deq tsun shaga aga grai matut hkat ai” ngu nna alai shaprawq tawn nga ai.15 Maliq hkuh majoi htaq, Khamti Sam ni gaw “Nung Lungmi hteq Jinghpaw” ni hpe “Khanung (Kha Nung), Khap’ok (Kha Hpaw, Kha P’ok)” ngu nga ma ai. “Kha” ngu ai gaw Sam tsun shaga aga rai nhtawm, “mayam” ngu ai lachyum mung, rawng nga ai.16 Bai nna lawuq gah palayang deq gaw, Jinghpaw hpe Sam ni gaw "Hkang" ngu nna bai tsun shaga nga maq ai.

“Putao – Machyangbaw” mayan hkan gaw grau nna “Nung-Rawang, Lisu, Jinghpaw, hte Khamti Sam” ni nga shanu maq ai. Ndai htaq, Miwa mung nga shanu lawm ai. Miwa gaw shau (n lawq) ai. Nga shanu ai hkrang gaw, lamugah dampa kaji tim, Sam ni mung Sam sansan, Lisu ni mung Lisu sansan, Jinghpaw mung Jinghpaw sansan, Rawang ni mung Rawang sansan rai nga shajang pra-nga maq ai. Shahte kahtawng ni lamugah dampa kaji ai majaw langai hte langai grai kahtep hkat maq ai. Ndai hpe shingran mulu na matu, Putao shara nah mabyin masa hpe yuyu gaq. Miwa

8


gaw Aukjaing (atmufcsKdifh); Sam gaw Panlawng, Pudawng, Hkuhpai; Lisu gaw Machyawwaw hkran; Jinghpaw gaw Lungtsut, Putao kawng kahtawng; Rawang gaw Dukdang, Nbungli daru grup-yin, Muqdung, ... hkan, jawqjawq rai ngade pra maq ai. Putao palayang htaq, Namhtung hkaq hteq Machyawwaw hkaq yan shinggrup lwilai nga ai. Tsun gaq nga yang, Sam gaw hkauhting htauna galaw mai ai hkaq lwilai ai masawn hkan, grau nga ai hpe mulu ai. Shadaq daq numlah num-ya hkat ai nga tim, shau (n lawq) ai. Raitim, Nmai hkaq (Nam Tamai river) kadit lagyawk lamugah hkan nga ai Nung Lungmi hteq Lisu ni gaw gayau gaya rai nna nga maq ai. Ndai hkan, “Tangsir hteq Kwinhpang” bugah aga ni hpe tsun shaga nga ma ai. “Nung Lungmi hteq Maru” ni tsun shaga ai bugah aga ni mung, kahtawng gaiwang langai hte langai tsan-gang hkat matwa jang, shai hkatwa ai hpe mulu nga ai.

HponManmaw (Bhamo) – Myitkyina lapran, “Maliq hkaq kaba” (Irrawaddy river) hkaqgyip makau de nga ai “Sinbo” shara hkan htaq, “Hpon” (Hpun) rusai bawqhpan hpanshan ni, ngapra laiwa sai. British “shadip magam” (government; asuya) hpung ni, woigalaw ai 1901 ning nah “Kala yuptung jahpan” (Census of India) htaq, Hpon masha jahpan marai (378) sha, rai nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. 1921 ning yuptung jahpan e Hpon amyu masha jahpan gaw, marai 367 hpe ka shakap tawn nga ai. 1931 ning htaq gaw, marai 284 sha, bai rai matwa nga ai. Hpon rusai hpanshan ni palayang lamugah deq dubang matwa ai shaloi, Sam amyu ni lapran shara ni hkan, ginru ginsa wachyat hkring mat nga maq ai. Dai majaw, Sam htunghking hku, ngasat ngasa sa wa nhtawm, galawluq galawshah matwa ai raitim, Hpon ni tsun shaga aga ni hpe dinglik yang Maru tsun shaga aga kawq nna ginrawn hkratwa na re, ngu nna E.R. Leach sawn nga ai.17

Maru ningshawng ginru ginsa htaq, bu-nawt hkratwa nna Irrawaddy hkaq sinnaq hkran de, rapdiq lai matwa ai Maru rusai bawsang nah bawqhpan ni, rai nga maq ai. Irrawaddy hkaq du nna Mogawng hkaqhkuh de, bai ginru ginsa chyalung matwa ai Maru ni gaw, “Htingnai Jinghpaw” bai warai

matwa nga ai hpe mulu ai. “Htingnai Jinghpaw lamugah”18 shingwang kata htaq, dushang matwa ai Maru ni gaw Sinbo Sam lapran nah Hpon ni zawn, Jinghpaw ngasat ngasa htunglai hku, galawluq galawshah nga matwa nna Jinghpaw Htingnai tsun shaga aga mahkuh (Htingnai Jinghpaw dialect accent) manawng hku, tsun shaga matwa nga maq ai. Numwawn numlah mung, ‘gaga mah-mah’ gayau matwa nga maq ai. Hpon ni nah tsun shaga aga kawq, Maru ni htaq grau nna Sam, Myen tsun shaga aga gasi gahkaw ni lawm nga maq ai. Kachin htunglai nkau hpe Hpon ni lang nga maq ai, ngu nna J. George Scott (1900:i:569) tsun nga ai. Ndai htaq, “jaba lap wawt ai htunglai” (yamh tawt ai ginlam) ni lawm nga ai. Dai hpe Hpon ni gaw, Jinghpaw ni kawq nna lah lang hkratwa ai re ngu nna J. George Scott madiq tawn nga ai. Hannay (British) hte Kincaid (American Baptist Mission) yan gaw, “Hpon” ni nah buhpun mawnsumli htunglai, dum ntah galaw shachyawq rawng ai hkrang ni htaq, “Sam” (Shan) htung hkrang hteq marensha, rai nga ai hpe muhkrup nna matsing ka tawn maq ai. H.R. Davies bai tsun matwa ai htaq, Hpon amyu ni shanhte tsun shaga aga hpe malap shamat kau nhtawm, Sam tsun shaga aga hpe bai tsun shaga matwa ai, ngu tawn nga ai.

Hpon amyu hte seng nna C. Morgan Webb mung, gamung dup tawn nga ai hpe mulu nga ai.19 Hpon rusai hpanshan ni “Azi, Lashi, Maru” ni hteq, ginru ginsa lawnglam zup-ra matut ginrawn ai gaw, Myen amyu ni shanhte yaq yang ngapra shanu nga ai shara de, gara

hku dushang hkratwa ai hpe chyena sha-ngun lu na re, ngu nna Major H.R. Davies myit sawn nga ai. Lachyum gaw Hpon ginru ginsa lawnglam chye jang, Myen ginru ginsa hpe asansha mulu na re, ngu sawn lah nga ai. Hpon ni gaw, Maliq hkaq kaba (Irrawaddy river) sinprawq hkran ginru ginsa wuhpung lam hku nna Irrawaddy palayang (Irrawaddy valley) deq ningshawng buhtawt hkratbang wa ai ni, railu nga maq ai. Raitim, hpangdaw deq gaw Sam lapran kawq, Sam amyu ni deq majawq kaplawm matwa ai, ngu tawn nga maq ai. Hpon ni nah shawng kawq ginru ginsa yuq hkratbang matwa ai ni, lawuq palayang deq laidiq shangbang matwa ai shaloi, Hpon ginru ginsa gaw sinprawq magah deq nah gayin yanshang yuqhkrat bangwa ai Sam ginru ginsa ni majaw, ginru ginsa hkring mat ra nga maq ai. Hpon ni hteq, shanhte shawng nah ni la-pran kawq Sam ni ngachyam hpring mat ai majaw, shawnglam de matut nawt-sit n mai matwa nga ai. Shanhte aq ginru ginsa hpe shawnglam de n lu matut matwa ai majaw, yaq dushang hkring nga ai lamugah shara e, pra-nga shayan mat nga ai. Deng ninghkan, Sam htunglai ni hpe dagrawq shakap matwa ai. Hpon rusai amyu makau grupgrup rara hkan nga nga ai “Sam htunghking hteq Sam rusai” gaw, Hpon ni hpe marawp ahprawp lah mat ai satlawat mung kaba nga ai, ngu nna C. Morgan Webb tsun madiq madun mat nga ai hpe mulu nga ai.

LashiLashi (Lachik) tsun shaga aga kawq, Jinghpaw htaq grau nna “Maru hteq Azi” tsun shaga aga ni lawm rawng nga ai. “Htunghking lailen hteq buhpun mawnsumli” ai lawnglam ni hkan, Jinghpaw hteq Lisu ni zawn, ginrawn ai nga ai sha n-gah, sawt sawt re ni du hkra, lawq nga ai. (Ndai kawq tsun mayu ai Lisu gaw, lawuq Lisu hpanshan hpe, ngu mayu ai re). Lashi (Lachik) hpe Dr. Ola Hanson hteq C.M. Enriquez yan sagawn tsun tawn ai gamung mung nga nga ai. Shan lahkawng yan nah ningmu htaq, Lashi rusai bawqsang ni gaw, “Azi, Jinghpaw Maran” ni Miwa hteq numwawn numlah rai nhtawm, pra-nga hkratwa shajang ai kawq nna gayau gumhpawn matwa ai” ngu tawn ai hpe mung, mulu nga ai.20 Shanhte (Lachik) ni tsunhkai hkratwa ai labau hku nga yang, Lashik (Lachi) ni gaw, “Miwa la (Chinese male) hte Maru num (Maru female) yan kawq nna pra

17 E.R. Leach, 1954, P-45.20 Ola Hanson, 1913, P-21.C.M. Enriquez, 1923, P-23.

18 It is located between the Irrawaddy river and around the Myitkyina–Mandalay railway road areas in Kachin State. Htingnai Jinghpaw dialect accent is slightly different with other Jinghpaw dialects like Gauri Jinghpaw, Lanaq Jinghpaw (around Bhamo-Nahkam motor road, hilly areas), Sinli Sam Mungh Jinghpaw, Hkahkuh Duleng Jinghpaw, Hukawng Jinghpaw, India Singpho, China Jinghpawsu …etc. But dif-ferently the term “Htingnai” is being applied to the whole Kachin State area by the Chinese Jinghpawsu. 19 Census of India, 1911, Volume-ix, Burma, Part-I, P-258: “Major Davies considers that the Hpon in conjunction with the Tsis, the Marus and the Lashis may throw some light on the dis-puted point as to how the Burmese reached their present country. It is probable that the Hpons were of identical origin with the tribes who mi-grated along the eastern branch of the Irrawad-dy river into the main Irrawaddy valley and ultimately coalesced to form the Burmese race. While their predecessors succeeded in reaching their objective, the Hpon were intercepted by the invasion of the Shans from the east. Unable to continue their migration they settled down in their present habitat and have now adopted Shan customs and are in a stage of rapid absorption by the Shans who surround them on all sides.”

9


9

hkratwa ai ni re" ngu nna mung, tsun shayan hkratwa ai lawnglam ni nga nga ai.21 Kasha ni hpe shaprat ai shaloi, amying shingteng shamying jawq ai htunglai kawq, Lashi (Lachik) ni nah hkrang gaw Maru hkrang zawn langai sha, rai nga maq ai. Tsun mayu ai gaw, “shangai kawa (father) amying jahtum na nsen gasi gahkum hpe kasha aq amying shawng nah gasi hku, shakap shamying ai hkrang” (the last syllable of the father’s name forms the first of the son’s) htunglai, rai nga ai. Ndai amying shingteng shamying hkrang hpe lawuq nah zawn, mulu nga ai.

Lashi tsun shaga aga hteq Maru nsen aga ni hkan, bungpreq hkat ai gasi gahkaw nkau ni gaw, Tibetan tsun shaga nsen aga nah ningpawt hpangwa ai ni mung, lawm nga ai. Nkau hkan gaw gasi hkrang satlawat marensha, rai nga maq ai. Ndai zawn re gasi gahkaw ni hpe mung, Tibeto-burma hpung hkan, mulu nga ai.23 Lashi hteq Maru ni tsun shaga aga hpan gaiwang langai kawq nna lamugah hteq wuhpawng pra-nga hkratwa ai satlawat masa majaw ti-nang wuhpang masa aga hku, jahtuk shaleng danpru (modification) matwa ai ngu yang mung, shut kaba gaw n rai nga ai. Kachin htaq, ginru ginsa hkratwa ai shaloi, nihtep hkat ai amyu bawsang ni (snr) laiyuq hkratwa ai ni kawq nah gasi gahkum ni hpe lachyau lachyan htaqlah gayau shakap nga maq ai. Tinang amyu rusai bawqsang e, n hpring shi nga ai “gasi gahkaw la-ing” (word vacuum) kawq, jahpring bangwa ai hkrang gaw ntsa deq nna nem ai shara deq hkaq lwiyuq hkratbang ai zawn, wabyin byin rai nga ai. Lawq ai (tsaw ai) deq nna n lawq ai (nem ai) deq chyaibang ai shing-

ra satlawat hkrang mung, mai ngu nga ai. Ndai satlawat hkrang htaq, dagawt bang lah n ra nga ai sha n-gah, nem ai lahkyawk masa de shanhte hkraihkrai chyaishang lwibang wa-wa, rai nga ai. Tsun shaga aga chyambra matwa ai gaw, ndai lahtaq nah masa satlawat e grau madung nga ai.

KaduKadu (Puteik, Sak) ni mung, shanhte makau grup-yin hkan, rau-nga raupra ginru ginsa hkratwa ai Jinghpaw ni kawq nna Jinghpaw tsun shaga nsen aga ni hpe htaqlah shalawm matwa ai hpe mulu nga ai.24 Ndai tsun shaga aga ginlen lah lang matwa ai ahkying aten ni gaw tsalam kaba naq mat nga sai. Htunghking, makam masham ni gaw shaihkat mat nga masai. Raitim, Lisu htaq grau nna Kadu ni kawq e, Jinghpaw tsun shaga aga ngam rawng taw nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. Kadu hpanshan ni ntsa htaq, palayang deq nah Sam ni aq galawluq galawshah, ngasat ngasa htunghking hkrang ni galup matwa ai majaw, Kachin htunghking ni hteq shaihkat matwa nga ai, rai nga ai. Shingdim daw deq gaw, lawuq gah deq nna bangbangpaq rai, bai chyambra lungwa ai Myen tsun shaga aga, makam masham, ngasat ngasa htunghking ni dagup gayau shakap lah matwa ai hpe mulu nga ai. Pyu hte “Kadu Kanan, Manipuri” tsun shaga aga, rusai ginrawn nga ai hpe hpaji machyoi ni alai shaprawq tawn nga ai zawn, “Kadu Kanan” hteq “Kachin” (Jinghpaw, Maru) lapran nah ginrawn matut nga ai lawnglam ni gaw, Pagan hkawseng shawngdaw prat (Phases of pre-Pagan dynasty) deq nah hpe, bai shakra alai shadan yalu ai ginjang satlawat byinpru sha-ngun luwa nga ai.

Ting Ying (Father)

Ying Bawm (First Son)

Bawm Hkaw (First Grand Son)

Hkaw Bawm (F. G. G. S.)

Lashi (Lachik) Patronymic Linkage System22

Munghsa (Maingtha)Ach’ang (Ngach’ang, Monghsa, Maingtha) amyu rusai bawqhpan ni mung, raupra rau-nga htingbu Sam (Shan) ni nah “htunghking lailen, buhpun mawnsumli, Buddhist sasana makam masham, ngasat ngasa, hkailuq hkaishah” hkrang ni hpe lah lang matwa nga ai. Buhpun mawnsumli hkan e, Sam hteq grau bungpreq nga ai kawq, “Sam-Miwa” (Shan-Tayuk, Shan-Chinese, &Srf;w&kyf) hpe tsun mayu ai, rai nga ai.

Sam-Miwa hpanshan rusai amyu ni hpe Myitkyina-Manmaw mawdaw lam mayan kawq, Myotit-Kunelaw lahtaq hteq Numlang kahtawng lapran nah Tali kahtawng (wmvD) hkan, nga ai ni rai nga maq ai. Ndai Shan-Tayuk ni gaw, Miwa Yunnan Tali gah deq nna ginru ginsa hkratyuq bangwa ai ni, rai nga maq ai. Shanhte ni gaw “namdum” hpe ntah aman magah wang jut deq, galaw tawn ai htunglai mung nga ai hpe mulu ai. Shinggyim wuhpawng ntsa hkrang e mulu ai htaq, Sam zawn zawn rai nga tim, masha amyu wuhpung katalam nah shinggyim htunghking shingjat kawq, mi-moi prat hkan nah lawm hkratwa ai htunglai nkau ni hpe nkau shara ni hkan, nawq mulu nga ai.

Kalanglang sharara hkan e, shanhte hkum hpe shanhte ni “Sam” ngu nna mung tsun chye nga maq ai. Raitim, Ach’ang ni nah hkumhkrang hprawh ningsam gaw, Sam hteq shai nga ai. Shanhte tsun shaga aga ni gaw, dandan lengleng shai shajang nga maq ai. Tsun shaga aga gasi shachyawq ai hkrang mung, Sam hteq shaihkat nga maq ai.25 Ach’ang amyu rusai ni tsun shaga ai htaq, “Maru, Lashi, Azi” tsun shaga aga matut ai lawnglam nga tim, shanhte tsun shaga aga gaw “Azi” hteq grau rudiq kahtep nga ai hpe mulu nga ai. Shanhte ni, Azi ni hteq rusai gamung hkrum ai hpe hkaplah nga maq ai.26 Ndai rusai rum ai gamung hpe “Hohsa hte Lahsa” hkan na “Munghsa” (Ach’ang, Maingtha) ni mung, tsun nga maq ai.27

*(Ach’ang ni Kachin hteq, nini htephtep pra-nga ai sha n-gah, bungpreq ai lawnglam ni ngahkat ai majaw, “Sir. J.G. Scott hteq J.P. Hardiman” (1900, Part-I, Volume-I, P-390) htaq, “Tareng” amying npuq kawq “Maingtha hteq Duleng” hpe gayau shut tawn nga ai. Ndai gayau shut ai hpe sha, W.L. Thomas (1950, Ethnic Groups of

21 H.R. Davies, “Yun-nan” (The link between India and the Yangtze), 1909, Cambridge, P-397.22 B.D. Maran, “Lhaovo, Lachik, Zaiwa Ginru Ginsa hte Ninggup Ahtik Labau”, Kachin Research Journal, 2008, No-I, Laiza, P-22. 23 For comperative study, see J. George Scott, “Gazetteer of Upper Burma and the Shan State”, Part-I, Volume-I, 1900, Rangoon, P. 660-9. (Henceforth: J. George Scott, 1900).

25 J. George Scott, 1900, P-618.26 E.R. Leach, 1954, P-58.27 H.R. Davies, “Yun-nan” (The link between India and the Yangtze), 1909, Cambridge, P-395. (Henceforth: H.R. Davies, 1909).

24 Jinghpaw English Kadu(01) Udi egg udi(02) Ahwa father ahwa(03) Wan fire wan(04) U foul u(05) Shata moon sada(06) Lam road lam(07) Jum salt sum(08) Lapu snake kapu(09) Sai blood se(10) Wawnli boat wali(11) Uhka crow uha(12) Gwi dog kyi (13) Na ear kana(14) Ga, lamuga earth ka(15) Wa tooth swa(16) La u (Verb) take away la nang(17) Tsap u stand up sap nim(18) Dung u sit down ton nim(19) Hkrap ai weep hapma

10


28 The Royal Asiatic Society Journal (1895, Volume-xxvii, P-157) : Strange to say these Tairongs themselves spoke Singpho, the explanation of this being as follows – “the Tairongs , who originally lived somewhere in the direction of the Upper Irrawaddy started for Assam to join some Naras who had preceded them thither. Unfortunately for them they had to pass through the Singpho country. As they passed through the country they were taken captives by the Singphoes. They remained as captives for five years according to their own account, but probably for longer, as they quite forgot their own language and adopted the language of their captors. It is strange that even to this day Tairongs talk nothing but Singpho.”

Northern South East Asia, New Haven, P-10) wa mung, galaw matut lang shayan shut tawn ai hpe E.R. Leach (1954, P-58) gaw dai gayau shut tawn ai lawnglam hpe bai sharai madiq madun ya nga ai. Captain P.R. Gurdon mung, (Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, Volume-xxvii, 1895, P-157) htaq, Sam

hte seng ai kawq Assam lamugah nah “Turung (snr) Tairong rusai hpanshan hpe mahkai la-kap shingdaw dinglik yu uq ai. Capt. P.R. Gurdon tsun madiq ai Tairong gaw Singpho aga hku, tsun shaga matwa nga ai.28 Ndai hpe C.C. Lowis (1902, Volume-xii, Part-I, P-78) htaq, P.R. Gurdon tsun tawn ai “Turung

hteq Tareng ni hpe bai shingdaw kahtap sharap shara shabung lah nga ai.)*

Ngam ai sawk dinglik adaw laika ni hpe hpang nah lang, bai matut bang

shalawm na. ***

frontier leaders rather than to meet actual or administrative requirements: a form of atonement for that age-old suspicion of the Burmese which the hill peoples could not at once discard” (1961:30). This sort of interpretation carries its own momentum, and it generally becomes very awkward not to offer a set of prescriptions as to what ought to be done with the problem of cultural and political integration. Hence, we read Professor Thinker’s suggestion: “The policy of deliberately replacing the lesser languages by Burmese may be somewhat arbitrary, and will somewhat accentuate the difficulties of the frontier areas in finding equality with their Burmese cousins, but it is certainly the right policy for the long haul. There is no place for parochialism and clannishness in Burma today, and nothing will create a true sense of solidarity so surely as the acceptance of a common language” (1961:179).

I am not implying that Professor Tinker inclines toward the kind of preoccupation I mentioned earlier, but it is clear that he has made a lot of assumptions about historical facts concerning the relationship between the Burman majority and the elements which constitute today’s minorities.

In the section below I ask some questions regarding the positions of the writers to whom I have already referred.

SOME PROBLEMS OF METHODOLOGY AND INTERPRETATION

Probably no one will dispute the conclusion that the writers I have quoted have realized that there are minority problems. However, insofar as our primary concern is to understand the nature of the problem, several questions immediately arise. Have the views mentioned above substantially enhanced our understanding of the minorities? Or have the authors dealt with the minority problems in such a way that we can

use their views as a general basis for ferreting out a way of dealing with the minorities? Upon close examination of these sources, the answer is clearly negative.

Professor Emerson makes very general statements about inter-group differences in such aspects as race, language, religion, or historical development. He argues that the condition of heterogeneity is the source of divisive tendencies (Emerson 1963:13). The generality of the statement shrouds the basic questions. Are we to assume that all minority groups are passing through the same disintegrative processes? Is the divisive tendency inherent in all societies which are not completely homogeneous? Or should divisiveness be regarded as the outcome of certain kinds of historical developmental features and therefore not the problem to be explained in that context? What sort of nationalism are we speaking of, if it can be attributed so indiscriminately to minorities? These questions seem relevant in light of the fact that we seem to have gotten nowhere nearer to understanding the problem by merely making general statements about nationalism in the emerging nations.

Similarly, the belief that the “divisive tendency of the minorities” derives from the colonial legacy of the West falls short on several serious points as an explanation of minority problems. Although it is politically popular to blame Western colonialism for most troubles, there is only partial truth in this belief, and hence it is only partially accurate as an assessment of the problem. There is, of course, a need for understanding the actual historical development of the distinctness of the minority, and colonialism is only one part of the story. The vehemence with which the case against Western colonial history has been argued has only served to obscure the other factors which were involved. For instance, Kyaw

Thet disregards the political relations between the Kachin and the last Burmese monarch at the time the British annexed the Kachin area. The British tried to preserve the obvious political status quo and did not begin plans for the cultural and political integration of the Kachin into Burman civilization as soon as thay had annexed Upper Burma. Is this sufficient justification for Kyaw Thet’s position that the British “merely set out to fossilize the many quaintnesses of primitive culture”? The history is otherwise. When the British were annexing Upper Burma, the Kachin had already risen en masse against the Burmese king. It took the British more than ten years after the fall of the Mandalay Empire to subdue the tribesmen (Woodman 1962:373-379), and the Kachin did not finally give up resistance against the British until 1935. It therefore becomes absurd to insist that the British colonial government should have begun immediate steps to assimilate the Kachin tribes in these circumstances.

It is very apparent that we cannot expect a full understanding of the Kachin minority problem to arise from our conviction that the British colonialism is the root of all “fissiparous” tendencies. It is inherently futile to regard the agent (British colonialism) as the basis for an analysis of the problem. We must understand what happened: who did it is a relatively trivial matter. The argument for anti-colonialism has been pursued with such exaggerated proportion that it has served as a convenient distraction for many. But the result has been that we do not know enough about the minority elements in our own country to work out a basis for cooperation and eventual assimilation. We have, in this blindness, lost touch with the real fact: that Western missionaries introduced Burmanization to the Kachin, starting in the 1880’s, long before the Burmans were even in a position to di so (see below, pp. 141 ff.).

Laikaman (24) matut

11


11

In commenting on Professor Tinker’s position, quoted above, I remarked that he has made many assumptions about the historical facts concerning Burma’s minorities. To be more specific, it may be pointed out that the “age-old suspicion” of which he speaks is very unlikely to be a historically constant feature among the tribes in the “frontier areas”. The occurrence of suspicion can only be explained in terms of historical events antecedent to independence, a fact which Professor Tinker has failed to provide. He also suggests that “in the long haul” the acceptance of Burmese as the national language is the right policy. He implies that this act would erase “parochialism and clannishness.” How one wishes in Burma today that this were the case! There are too many contrary examples. The Arakanese are speakers of a dialect of Burmese, but they shattered this “national language brings national unity” myth quite some time ago by taking to the jungle to try to remove themselves from Burman control. The Mon are certainly the minority group which has been culturally most assimilated, but this fact has not brought about harmony and acceptance of equality with the Burmans. Among the Kachin tribes active Burmanization and the acceptance of the Burmese language began in the 1880’s_ but are the Kachin happily integrated today? (See Butwell 1963:227); Silverstein 1964:149).

Surely we have not gotten very far using the kinds of statements that scholars have made on the problem of minorities. They have simply recognized the problematic nature of unassimilated minorities. For a general answer to the predicament they have only resorted to sweeping generalizations. It is not apparent that they have given any serious thought to why the minorities are problematic in each case, or whether or not each case is different. The result of this inadequacy has been a lack of depth and perspective in our approach to the whole topic. They have tried to argue from the position that the basic differences between groups of people who claim to be dissimilar can be neatly bundled into categories like language, race, religion, and historical development. Since they do not examine cases critically, they have not realized that their a priori criteria for determining inter-group differences are often very relative, and even ineffective. They have inadvertently implied that the differences may be absolute, when in actual cases the criteria may be

impossible to apply. To any serious student of the problem, this inadequacy becomes an overwhelming problem in methodology.

In what follows I will argue that the referents of such terms as Kachin, Shan, and Chin are not neat bundles, and that to deal with them as if they were is only begging the issue. I will claim that such an approach is not only imprecise, but that it is also a serious nuisance. I will also propose alternatives based on a definition of “minority group” which wok in turn rest on a wider observation of the problem.

It is my belief that the term “minority” has too often been used in a very loose sense and without any characterization of the nature of the group to which it is supposed to refer. Consequently, it has tended to create the false notion that some sort of universal similarity in fact exists in every case and at every level of analysis of “minorities.” In actuality there is no empirical basis to justify such assumptions. Since our concern here requires a more detailed and rigorous approach to this problem, we shall henceforth insist that the use of this term if misleading without contextual qualification. By contextual qualification we shall mean diachronic, synchronic, and comparative points of view that may be stated for any particular group of people or any type of social organization we happen to discuss. In what follows we introduce an example of the type of complexity that is usually encountered in characterizing actual human societies.

The Non-Homogeneous Kachin State. Because language difference has often been cited as one principal criterion for intergroup dissimilarity, we will now look into the languages spoken in Kachin State. Kachin is a term covering seven linguistic groups, of which two members belong to branches distant from the others within the Tibeto-Burman family. These are Rawang and Jinghpaw. The Jinghpaw language is spoken by the largest group and, in its role as the lingua franca in north Burma, is spread over a linguistic area far larger than the political boundaries of Kachin State. Jinghpaw is broken down into three broad dialect regions, one of which falls in the northern Shan State. Each dialect region has at least five sub-dialect groups.

The three languages of the groups of Kachin who are culturally and politically inseparable from the Jinghpaw speakers have been classified

as being immediate cognates of Proto-Burman (see Kyaw THet 1956:229; and Linguistic Survey of India). These are the Atzi, Maru, and Lashi. Each of these has at least three dialects, which are largely mutually unintelligible. Added to this there are three known groups of Lisu dialects and two Rawang dialects. Thus a lingiustic classification of minorities would give us a full twenty-nine “minority groups” who turn out to be intertwined culturally and politically, and for many practical purposes are unified.

Another consideration is that a vital section of the Kachin State population is Shan-Tai in speech. These people speak Tai Nui, Tai Dai. Tai Dau, Tai Lung, and Tai Leng dialects, which are only slightly mutually intelligible. The Tai Dai speakers have claimed for the last seventy-five years that they have “become Burmans,” and prefer to be known as Shan-gyi (literally “bigger or superior kind of Shan”) on the basis of their identification with Burma civilization.

The Burmans divide themselves into two main groups: the “real Burmans” (bama si?), who trace their origin to the south; and others who claim to have “passed for Burmans,” notably the Shan-gyi.

In addition we have a number of very small and scattered languages, such as those spoken by the professional elephant-drivers who claim the status of a full-fledged minority on the basis of their distinct form of communication with the elephants. Since we cannot dispute language loyalty which the user himself defines, they must be regarded as one more separate group.

What is the result? Falling within one political entity (Kachin State) are such diverse language groups that we have no less than forty minorities (linguistically defined) in a minority political state. But the complexities of definition have just begun. The Kachin speakers, in spite of their linguistic differences, all share notions of common ancestry, practice the same form of marriage system, have an almost homogeneous customary law and social-control system, use only Jinghpaw for ritual purposes, and are largely polyglots, in the full sense of the term. Genetically the languages are divergent; culturally and bilingually the groups of speakers converge.

This phenomenon not only indicates an intricately woven situation, but it also raises the fundamental question of

12


the relevance of language difference as a criterion for defining minorities. This question has received insufficient attention in many studies of minority peoples. It is premature, without having explored the actual situation, to make a statement such as “groups A and B are different in the languages spoken by each.” Such a statement tells us little about the features of the socio-linguistic relationship that may link the groups together in a way that makes genetic differences of language unimportant for the analysis of inter-group relationships.

The same argument applies to the other generalized and abstract notions used by historians, political scientists, and others in defining or describing minority groups. By resorting to a general criterion of inter-group difference such as language, one can hardly expect to derive any substantive adequacy in the analysis until it has been qualified with facts pertaining to the context in which language is used - such issues as language attitude and loyalty, bilingualism and its socio-cultural basis, the nature of specialized borrowing between the contacting languages, patterns of dialectal variation, etc. Earlier we argued for contextual qualification of the criteria for inter-group differences, and we repeat this plea here. Undoubtedly, such insistence must reduce the generality of the statements we make about inter-group differences. But it is not generality in sets of formal criteria that we are interested in. Rather, it is the understanding of the context within which language, for example, functions as a meaningful reason for difference between the groups that is our real objective.

The terms “minority” and “majority” themselves indicate that they cannot be mutually exclusive entities. Each is what it is because of what each is to the other. Inasmuch as a majority implies attached minorities, then an adequate observation of the relation between them must treat them as related systems. The distinctiveness of one element can only be properly understood when it is viewed against other related units. This applies to the characterization of the relationship between the majority and the minority, and equally to the relationship between the string of minorities, such as the Kachin tribes, which together form one minority in a larger political context.

With these methodological problems

in mind we can make a tentative set of prescriptions as the basis for deriving an adequate understanding of a minority element in a state or a nation. First, a plausible policy for dealing with minority elements must be based on an understanding of each element as a functioning socio-cultural system. Second, such a basis must exclude the treatment of each element as a formal, discrete isolate. In other words, an element (or system) under study must be viewed within the context of its relations to other elements (or other systems) in all relevant aspects. Third, such a basis must take into account the circumstantial factors or developmental features in the general historical process which underlie the present distinctiveness. The present distinctiveness of an element (or system) should not be the starting point for designing a policy of relationship with the state or the majority element.

Now that a broader context has been outlined within which we can deal with the problem of understanding a minority group, we can suggest what we mean by “minority.” We must first state that this definition applies only to the limited scope of this paper and the methodological needs we have considered. We can now commit a logical circularity and define a “minority” as any human group whose cultural and political interests are overshadowed by those of a numerically larger group entertaining a different set of cultural and political interests. We have thus defined a minority as any group to which we can apply the three claims we made in the paragraph above. Our requirement is the understanding of the pertinent details, and hence our approach is microcosmic. We need not worry about the fallacy of logical circularity, since we do not pretend that our approach is macrocosmic. We may also add at this point that the first two of the claims concern a synchronic description, while the third claim relates to the problem of a diachronic description of a minority group.

THE KACHIN: A MINORITY GROUP

We will now list briefly the features which should be included in the adequate description of the Kachin as a minority. We can only outline the main features of the circumstances which have a direct bearing on the present distinctiveness of the Kachin. Brevity is required by the scope of the paper.

The first significant feature is that the political matrix of Burma’s Kachin State area does not correspond to the boundary of cultural influences. There are Kachin in other parts of Burma, in India Assam, and in Chinese Yunnan. What appears as one general cultural picture involves international political implications.

This irredentist status has been politically important, but culturally irrelevant. In terms of cultural influences, the area is much further enlarged, for it is only through contact with the Chinese and Shan systems that the Kachin system becomes distinctive and meaningful. Throughout the entire Kachin area, lowland agriculture, accompanied by varying degrees of bilingualism, has come from the Shan. The extent of the influence can be illustrated by the fact that in 1960, 15 percent of lowland agricultural land passed from Shan to Kachin hands in Bhamo District alone (author’s fieldnotes 1958-1961, Bhamo). And, as Leach (1954:9) has pointed out, one of the two ideal models of political systems (the gumsa) between which the empirical Kachin societies oscillate has been derived from the Shan (see below).

Free movement across the national boundary with China persisted until 1958. For centuries the only source of agricultural implements like plow-blades and hoes, other goods like swords, and pots and pans has been from China, through seasonal trading and migratory smiths. Added to these are the many items of ritual wealth which are borrowed lock, stock, and barrel from the Chinese material inventory, and the practice of ancestor worship, with its great effect on Kachin cultural life.

Clearly, any notion of Kachin cultural distinctiveness must refer in part to the characteristic ritual-symbolic use of such items and traits which have come from their neighbors. The functional importance of this dependence will confirm or earlier statement that a minority element, while itself a functioning entity, can be understood only in relation to surrounding systems with which it has entered into significant relations.

The problem of definition is enlarged because the relation between the majority and minority may involve other minorities or systems whose political boundaries do not correspond to cultural relations. In such cases

13


it may be impossible to analyze the systems separately. The status of minority groups within minority elements (Shan in Kachin), or the minor segments of a majority within a minority element (Chinese in Kachin), and the considerable functional dependence of one group on the other are some of the least understood aspects of the whole problem in Burma today. For example, in Kachin State there is a Burman population, which is protected as a minority element. Whether this protection actually affects the influence of the Burman on the Kachin is another question, but at least this is an indication of the presence of carriers of majority influence within the system of a minority, in the form of still another protected minority.

As noted earlier, linguistic boundaries and areas of cultural influence, or the presence of functional interdependence, can hardly correspond. The division of entities into neat catergories like Shan vs. Kachin, or valley culture vs. hill culture, and the argument that these entities conform to ecological zones and types of cultivation hardly conforms to reality today in Kachin State. By contrast with our expectations on the basis of such categorization, the results of long contract between highland and lowland in the Kachin are are wide cultural borrowing extensive social change, an acutely imprecise delimitation of the two as exclusive societies, and a great deal of Kachin integration with the lowlanders. Some Kachin are well adapted and long established in the valleys.

What are the results of this for the Shan who live in Kachin State? The governmental structure is such that little could be done for the Shan by approaching their problems directly or from their point of view. This is because the Shan are a minority within the Kachin State, and because there is a Shan State where the Shan are the ruling majority. Thus, although the Shan are far more numerous in Burma than the Kachin, they are domiciled as a minority in a Kachin political domain. At the same time, Shan cultural influence on the Kachin far outweighs the significance of Kachin political privilege. The Shan are not alone in this; we have already mentioned the anomalous position of the Burman as a protected minority in the Kachin State.

Apparently the Kachin are not a discrete society, nor are they conceivable as a discrete political unit, despite the

existence of Kachin State. However, there are indications that a pluralistic type of organization may eventually emerge, the lines of which would be drawn on a Kachin vs. non-Kachin basis.

Because the various categories of language, political structure, and cultural influence fail to correspond, and because we have already postulated that each minority element is to be regarded as a functioning entity in relation to other such entities, we are forced to use the boundaries of cultural influence as our units of analysis and to consider related systems in this context.

Let us now pursue the circumstantial factors of a distinctive minority group. We have argued that such distinctiveness falls into a pattern only when we view it in the wider context of the boundaries of cultural influence. F.K. Lehman’s analysis of the Chin is one such example. Here, . . . the elaborate material culture, the prestige economy, the panoply of social gradation, and the persistent tendency to form supralocal realms all serve as symbols of the Chin claim to a place in the scheme of civilization.This symbolic incorporation of Burman civilization, or of Chin notions of it, is necessary because of the difficulty and instability of substantive Northern Chin contacts with Burman markets and communities (1964:103-104).

The customary treatment of the distinctiveness of the Chin as an entity would refer only to the first part of the above quotation. But a social scientist can regard such analysis only as a surface description and will not find it of value for much more than simple classification. Lehman, however, has not stopped with classification. He sees emerging from his description, and within the larger context of Chin-Burman contact, a “symbolic incorporation of Burman civilization” by the Chin. They have taken an ideal model from their contact with another group, but they have apparently made it inherently Chin in expression. Chin distinctiveness falls into a pattern and becomes meaningful, but only in the broader context. The Chin notion of civilization is a distinctive feature only to the extent of the factual importance of the dependent role that the Chin entered into with the Burmans. The fact that cultural or political aspects of the Burman civilization fall within the purview of the Chin cultural or political life is made manifest in the Chin’s

symbolic incorporation. This is the kind of analysis which we have claimed is necessary as an adequate basis for understanding a minority element.

Kachin social structure has developed in relation to the Shan in a manner analogous to the way the Chin symbolically incorporated Burman civilization. E. R. Leach (1954) describes the Kachin political system as having two ideal models. One of these, gumlao, is a type which is chiefless. The other ideal, gumsa, was derived from the Shan princely state model and has traditional chiefs. Leach asserts that actual Kachin societies tend to oscillate between these two ideals, which, he says, are antithetical to one another. While my own field work tends to substantiate much of Dr. Leach’s interpretation, I must disagree with him on a number of technical points.2 For instance, the chiefless gumlao type and the gumsa-type are not at all antithetical to each other. Instead, it is variant forms of the gumsa-type society which have become antithetical tone another.

The adherents to the gumlao political system have not been influenced by the Shan in any substantial way. Instead, their deviation from gumchying gumsa, the traditional, original Kachin ideal model, has coincided with their progressively greater reliance on upland opium-poppy (cash crop) cultivation, in place of subsistence upland-rice agriculture. This contrasts with some units having a gumsa-type society, whose members have imitated irrigated Shan-type rice agriculture on a large scale.

In fact, three kinds of gumsa-type societies have emerged. The first is the gumchying gumsa, the original, traditional ideal Kachin model, whose adherents are upland farmers, confined to the Traingle Region of extreme northern Burma. Second is the gumrawng gumsa, an intermediate type, whose chiefs generally become powerless figureheads. Most of the lowland settlers seem to derive from this type of society. It is associated with the practice of terraced cultivation on mountainsides, but nonetheless the villagers are generally mobile. The third type, gumsa, has Shan-type feudatory chiefdoms. All examples are practitioners of lowland irrigated

2My disgreements with Professor Leach are dealt with in a paper to appear shortly. I show there that gumlao societies are not really chiefly, although among them chieftainship is not strictly hereditary.

14


agriculture, with large, concentrated, settled communities.

The third gumsa type displays the greatest amount of symbolic incorporation of Shan civilization. In contrast, the gumchying gumsa system maintains the requirement of a ritual purification of each lowland gumsa adherent before he is allowed to settle in a gumchying gumsa domain again. The reason given for this requirement is that members of the lowland gumsa society have been exposed to Shan influence and witchcraft and have stopped being real Kachins. This contention is supported on a ritual level, because Kachin animism has no ceremonial-ritual prescription for lowland (irrigated) cultivation. Agricultural ritual is confined strictly to swidden (slash-and-burn) agriculture, the type practiced by the gumchying gumsa people. In order to be provided with the protection of the Kachin priests, the lowland gumsa adherent must have a swidden field alongside his permanent irrigated field. This is a purely symbolic and non-ecomomic requirement, necessitated by his not yet having taken on all aspects of Shan society.

While gumchying gumsa and gumsa are antithetical to each other in that each approximates a polar type of society, the middle variant, gumrawng gumsa, is in a general state of disorganization. We can return now to Leach’s generalization concerning Kachin political behavior, in which he states that larger aggregates will disintegrate into smaller ones, and that smaller units will re-integrate into larger ones (1954:6). This generalization seems more meaningful when applied to the gumrawng gumsa type, which must serve as the intermediate stage in an oscillation between the ideal Shan-type gumsa and the ideal Kachin-type gumchying gumsa societies.

It is now clear that, in the final analysis, we must view Kachin distinctiveness not only in relation to the Shan, but also in terms of what the Kachin at both ends or poles of the oscillating system regard as the distinguishing features which typify them as Kachin. In order words, we must now ask what features exists which the Kachin regards as marking him off as “Kachin” in spite of the broad range of variation of Kachin social types - a range in which one type has taken a great deal from the Shan.

The next developmental features which we consider, the influences

of geography and education, have generally been overlooked by historians and other writers on the subject. Consider the following situation. Kachins were traditionally mountain-dwelling people; lowland Kachin settlements were unusual. The population density of the general area could not have been more than five per square mile (in the 1931 census it was five to seven persons per square mile). Mountain terrain generally made communication and transportation difficult. The Burmese kings had armies which conquered by sheer weight of numbers, not by specialization of units and weapons. Is it likely then that these mountain populations would have been subdued and put under Burman suzerainty for any length of time?

In the past a large ribbon of Shan population has meandered around the Kachin mountain areas and has stood in the way of Kachin contacts with other lowlanders. Evidence of borrowing from the Shan in Kachin language and material culture is substantial, whereas borrowing from the Burmans is negligible. This sort of evidence means that we can discount some claims (e.g. Furnivall 1960:4) of direct Burman control of the Kachin which did not involve the Shan as well. For centuries there have been symbiotic relation between the Shan and the Kachin for food and for protection against other marauding feudatories. Thus we must understand something of the Shan in order to understand the Kachin. Likewise, the Shan must define himself in relation to the Kachin and the Burman.

How has the distinctiveness of the Kachin as a minority affected relations with the central government? In 1947, when the British Parliament required a Frontier Areas Enquiry Commission to collect tribal opinions concerning their possible amalgamation into an independent Union of Burma, the Kachin witnesses were almost unanimously in favor of joining. Reliable records exist (Burma 1947), so we can see what kinds of witnesses were examined. The first group of witnesses was made up of military personnel, on the average more widely traveled and knowledgeable than other Kachin. The second group was composed of professional people, mostly school teachers, clerical workers, Christian missionaries, and some frontier chiefs. At that time public schools were a rarity in the Kachin

area, and, to a man, this group had been trained in Christian mission schools. The history of education among the Kachin is important because it contradicts some of the commonly held notions about the effects of missionaries in tribal areas. The Burman was not the first to teach Burmese language to the Kachin. Instead, the language was taught as a part of missionary education. The first mission school was set up in 1878 in Bhamo, the northernmost town having some contact with Burma civilization. There were no resident Kachin in Bhamo, so the missionaries brought them from the hills and started settlement units. This area became the principal location for education of the Kachin, and ir is notable that Burmese was used as the language of instruction. There was very little teaching of English. Graduates from this school spread over the whole Kachin area.

The window through which an educational awakening came to the Kachin was the Burman language and literature. When in 1947 Kachin witnesses gave their approval for a state of some sort within the independent Union of Burma, all but one of the witnesses were products of the Bhamo missionary schools. These were the people who decided that the fate of the Kachin should be with the rest of Burma. Thus it is correct to say that the real beginning of active Burmanization of the Kachin came with the Western Christian missionaries. It is also true that Brmese was accepted as a kind of national language by these educated Kachin. At the time of the Second World War there were only about twenty-five Kachin who had some command of the English language, and among these were three college graduates, the first and only Kachin to be so educated until then.

The decision to become part of Burma is highly significant because there are now active sections within the Kachin who see the Kachin only as a system within the larger system which is Burma. This start of Burmanization implies, among other things, that the older “symbolic incorporation of Shan civilization” is in the early stages of being outgrown. Education has led to a wider view of geography, politics, language, and culture, which brings to the Kachin the need for a new orientation. This partially explains why the provincialism of the mountain-dwelling outlook was shed and how a Kachin State within a Union of Burma

15


could be conceived as reasonable and agreeable.

In summary, the following developmental factors may be regarded as the principal functional features which have shaped the Kachin today. In the past the Kachin were culturally distinctive only in relation to the Shan and the Chinese, and the boundary of cultural influences emanating from these neighbors delimited the Kachin’s distinctive area. Today Kachin distinctiveness lies within the total Burmese system. In the past all Kachin awareness of the Burman was filtered through the Shan, and, of course, the Shan have historically been identified in the larger Burman political and ideological context. It was not until the reign of the Burmese King Thibaw, when the political situation was in a condition of rapid deterioration, the British annexation was imminent, and the Shan had thrown off the Burman yoke and consolidated their states, that Burma came within the purview of Kachin political ambition. This attempt was stopped by the British in 1895, a decade after the rest of Burma fell (Woodman 1962: 339-379).

The next developmental factor was the introduction and acceptance of Burmese language and literature, which came with Christian missionaries. Their educational work was largely responsible for the decision to put the future of the Kachin with the rest of Burma (Kachin Youth League Magazine No.1, Vols. 1-3, 1947). In the post-independence years, the acceptance of Burmese and the early stages of Burmanization were viewed as too small and too slow by the central government, while the Kachin appear to emphasize the opposite opinion.

Obviously there has been a tremendous shift in Kachin outlook, especially in view of the history of contact with the modern world. The Kachin continued to resist the British until 1935 and then resisted the Japanese from the beginning to the end of the Second World War. They, along with the Chin, were the only two Burma nationalities to organize resistance and never to give the Japanese suzerainty over them. Following the war they willingly agreed to become a part of an independent Burma.

As an anthropologist I can offer no plausible interpretation for this sudden decision to become a part of Burma other than that it indicates an acceptance

of a certain degree of Burmanization. This Burmanizaton has now apparently, become functionally more important in the light of the enlarged world view of the Kachin. If this is the case, then the recent indications of unrest in the Kachin area must be traced to a misjudgement on the part of the Burmans of an acceptance which was already there. If the Kachin agreed to the formation of a Kachin state within the Union, what was implied was that he saw his political system within the larger orbit of Burma civilization; he defined his distinctness in relation to the Burman. The acceptance of the Burmese language has substantially enlarged the Kachin world view.

The policy toward minorities, as set forth in the Constitution of Burma, and the actual practices of the bureaucracy are often widely disparate. Perhaps the rapid changes in Burman society have prevented the Burman majority from correctly assessing the Kachin situation. It is clear that the actions of the Kachin in accepting the Burmese language and political union were misunderstood, and signs of friction have recently broken out in the open.

We may quote a pertinent view of the question of integration of minorities from Silverstein. “ Little attention has yet been given to the corollary problem of persuading the dominant Burmans to accept the minorities as equals, and convincing them that Burmese culture and history is the product of all people” (1964:152). Prolonged failure to realize the bilaterality of integration or integrative procedure can only result in the greatest obstacle to an eventual solution: crippling suspicion and mistrust on the part of the minority, contempt and intolerance on the part of the majority.3

Have we constructed too stringent requirements for the adequate understanding of a minority group? Must we know everything about all things, and therefore is our prescription to be dismissed as arrogant and

unworkable? I think not. Wagley and Harris (1958:239), for example, have made a similar set of suggestions for the study of New World minorities. The essence of research in any empirical science lies in the ability to sort out the variable from the constant factors and in the ability to sort out factors which are needlessly redundant. At the outset the task may be formidable, but I anticipate that a concerted attack on the problem, using several disciplines, will lead us to an adequate and concise idea of its nature and implications. Whether we look at the problems of minorities from a purely academic point of view, or actually try to give advice for their alleviation, the problems are too demanding to be left untouched. We cannot be absolved by continuing to ignore the problems, no matter what convictions we hold.

CONCLUSION

If any significant conclusion can be drawn from the example of the Kachin, it comes in the form of three related questions.

First, do we, in Southeast Asia, understand the minority elements sufficiently to formulate a workable policy? Or do we still punch the colonial sandbag for every appearance of separatism? Second, have we looked wide and deep enough: have we paid sufficient attention to the factors underlying the distinctiveness of minority elements in relation to order elements? Third, assuming that sufficient understanding exists, how for is the central government willing to go to accommodate minority interests?

This last question implies that one can put up a rational superstructure only on a rational basis. A lack of complete cultural integration becomes a problem only if complete integration is the expressed objective of the majority. If we realize that stringent requirements for rapid assimilation will only intensify a delicate situation, we can note that pluralism is an alternate policy to that of

3 The picture of relationships between the Kachin and the Burmese government is not as grim as I may have implied. The following case shows a great sensitivity to some of the cultural problems involved in resettlement of some Kachin groups. Between 1959 and 1961 the Sino-Burmese border settlement was worked out, and the territory of three Kachin villages was ceded to the People’s Republic of China (see Silverstein 1964: 165, Map 3). The responsibility for relocation of the villages was given jointly to the Kachin State government and the Frontier Areas Administration of the Burma army. The government officials made all arrangements to enable an almost literal transplanting of the villages. The village chiefs, village councils, ownership and distribution of land, and other institutions were all transferred to the new sites. I visited the resettled villages twice in 1961-1962, to obtain firsthand information about the attempted transplant. The transfer was handled so thoroughly that even the blueprints for the layout of the new villages were made in consultation with the village councils. This willingness on the part of the government to treat each community as a functioning socio-cultural entity seems to have paid off. The transplanted villages have taken root, and there is every reason for optimism. The government also took the opportunity to introduce some changes as well. These involved a public school system, a hospital, semi-mechanized farming, and the orderly planning of the settlement pattern.

16


complete integration. However, in some situations, the minority and majority interests must coincide. We agree with Kyaw Thet that “the first salient issue must be how to [impress the fact] that in many spheres of activity and at certain levels of association and organization, the whole nation-state is the minimal unit if it is to survive in the condition of the present day world” (1956: 166).

The next fundamental concern is how far the recognition of differences could at the same time be designed as a strategy in the integration of loyalties. Is it possible to develop a policy to encourage and preserve different traditions and at the same time discourage disintegrative tendencies? This is a difficult question; and when I make the claim that no two minority elements are, or can be, exactly alike in terms of their requirements for integration with the majority, I have already denied the possibility of a single universal solution. At a later date I hope to be able to indicate what I feel to be the next step in dealing with the minorities. I shall then suggest what further steps may be feasible for Burma and indicate haw some of these steps might be taken.

REFERENCES CITEDBRECHER MICHAEL 1963 The new states of Asia: a

political analysis. New York, Oxford University Press.

BURMA 1947 Report of the Frontier

Areas Committee of Enquiry, and appendices. Rangoon.

BUTWELL, RICHARD 1963 U Nu of Burma. Stanford,

Stanford University Press. EMERSON, RUPERT 1960 From empire to nation: the

rise of self-assertion of Asian and African peoples.

Cambridge, Mass., Harvard University Press.

1963 Political modernization: the single party system. Denver, University of Denver Monograph Series in World Affairs, 1.

FURNIVALL, JOHN S. 1948 Colonial policy and practice.

Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

1960 The governance of Burma. New York, Institude of Pacific Relations.

KYAW THET 1956 Burma: the political

integration of linguistic and minority groups. In Nationalism and progress in free Asia, Philip W. Thayer, ed. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 156-168.

LEACH, E. R. 1954 Political systems of highland

Burma: a study of Kachin social structure. Cambridge,Mass., Harvard University Press.

LEHMAN, F. K. 1963 The Structure of Chin

Society: a tribal people of Burma adapted to a non-Western civilization. Urbana, Univesity of Illinois Press.

MACARTNEY, C. A. 1934 National states and national

minorities. London, Oxford University Press.

PURCELL, VICTOR 1956 The influence of racial

minorities. In Nationalism and progress in free Asia, Philip W. Thayer, ed. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins Press, 234-245.

SILVERSTEIN, JOSEF 1964 Burma. In Governments and

politics of Southeast Asia, 2d edn., George McTurnan Kahin, ed. Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 75-179.

TINKER, HUGH 1961 The Union of Burma.

London, Oxford University Press.

WAGLEY, CHARLES, and MARVIN HARRIS 1958 Minorities in the New

World: six case studies. New York, Columbia University Press

.WOODMAN, DOROTHY 1962 The making of Burma.

London, Cressett Press.

Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) A to Z du hkra hpe wuhpung garan nna yu shangun ai. Ra mu mada ai ni hpe shaw ka kahkyin shangun nhtawm, Komiti kaw kalang bai jawm yu shakyet la ai lam galaw ai. Dai hpe 3-28. 3. 2015 laman galaw shajin nna KIC de tang madun sa da ngut sai lam chye lu ai.Wunpawng Mungdan Shanglawt Kongsi, KONGSI DAW I/A MAGAM ORDER, MASAT YAN 3. PA JAU BUM NINGHTOI: 5. 5. 2017 hte Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) Komiti kaw nna, galaw shapraw ngut da sai Ga Htai Chyum (English-English-Kachin-Myanmar Standard Dictionary) a ntsa bai jenjep sa wa na matu, Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) Jenjep Komiti hpe kalang bai hpaw shabawn dat ai lam chye lu ai.

No. 2. Lang na Komiti ni1. Sara Kaba Maran Brang Di (HLD) Ningbaw2. Salang Kaba San Htoi Mun (TMD) Ningbaw Malai3. Sara Kaba Waje Htingnan La (HkRD) Malawm4. Salang Kaba Lagawng Tawng La (DGA) Malawm5. Du Kaba Kumhtat Brang Seng (NGYD) Malawm6. Du Kaba Jum Gam Awng (SMD) Malawm7. Du Kaba Kadung Tu Awng (H.D) Malawm8. Du Kaba Wara Naw Tawng (MJK) Malawm9. Saranum Sumlut Bawk Hkawn (HLD) Malawm10. Du Jum Lahpai Zau Tang (KIC) Malawm11. Sara Kaba Lahpai Gam Maw (Ed-D) Malawm ni rai ma ai.

Laikaman (1) "GA HTAI CHYUM (DICTIONARY) ENGLISH, KACHIN, MYANMAR" matut

17


MAROI NNI, MASAT DAI KRIBang Htan Mungshawa Gat Hta,

Myen Hpyendap ni Mungshawa Ni Hpe Wa Gap Sharu Ai Mabyin Labau

Labang Doi Pyi SaU Lang Pa Mare

Manmaw, Manwing, Namhkam Mawdaw lam a ka-ang Bum tsaw Kai Htik hkyet a Dingda maga deng (30) daram tsan ai Burn Chyaw bum lagaw, Sinna e de da ai. No.II Mungkan majan hpang 1950 ning jan hta bai de wa ai. Htinggaw (20) grup yin sha nga ai kaw Buga Ginra a ka-ang re ai majaw 1956 ning hta Lawu Tsang Hpaji Sharin Jawng, Tsi Jaw Gawk hpe Shadip Magam Sanction masat jaw hpaw da ai. Nhtoi (5) ya Gat hpaw da nna grup yin Buga masha ni hpe akyu jaw ai mare langai rai nna, K.1.0 pru wa ai hte Ginwang Daw hkringdat gang ai U Lang Pa Mare re ai. Masha nga pra ai n law ai raitim, grup-yin ginra a ka-ang gindai ang ai majaw Ginwang Daw kaw nna, U Lang Pa Ginwang, tsang du hkra shamying lang ai kahtawng Mare langai re.

Myen hpyen gumshem hpyen ni 1964 ning December shata hta, Dap jung wa nga nna 1965 ning, June shata hta grup-yin kahtawng,-(1) Hka Shang Yesu kahtawng(2) Lahkra Daw Kahtawng(3) Loi Hpang Kahtawng(4) Jang Ding Kahtawng(5) Nam Sa Kahtawng(6) Hin Buk Hka Pra Kahtawng kau mi hpe gawt gahkyin la nna "Bawng Kahtawng" (စုစည္းရြာ) galaw kau ai. 1975 ning hta Bawng Kahtawng hpe shabra kau ai majaw, mare mung wan nat jahten kau hkrum sai mare rai mat ai.

Bang Htan Mare

Man Wing hte Nam Hkam lapran Nmau Hka hpri noi mahkrai a Sinna Maw Tawng Bum nna Bum shagawng gau-ngwi tsaw mat wa ai hpunggaw, Yang Wu, Dingga, Maw Swi, Hka Kan, Loi

Maroi Nni Masat Dai Kri Masat Shadaw(March 30, 2017 ya e gawgap ngut)

Kang Bum

Yai, Loi Jawm, Chying Hkrawng, Prang Hkyem bum shagawng mayan Nmau Hka hpe Sinpraw nna Sinna maga lwi yawng ai hte ding yang gran hkrat wa ai bum dunghkung ntsa kaw de da ai Hpunggan Lahpai Du ni a lamuga re. 1961 Ning, September hta K.I.A Hpyen Dap de shawng shang wa ai Labang Brang Awng (Lat Gaw Dan) a shangai Buga re.

1962 ning, October hta K.I.O kaw nna Township Officer (T.0) U Lang Pa Ginwang Daw Uphkang Du shawng galaw wa ai Du Wa Lahpai Hkun Seng wa a Buga Gumchying gumsa Du galaw lai wa ai Buga re. Htinggaw (100) grup-yin nga wa yu nna Shadip Magam Lawu Tsang Jawng hpaw nna Jawngma (100) a lahta de nga ai Bum daw hte Layang daw na Buga masha law law ni a dutlu dutsha hpaga kunrai galai ginlen hkat ai nhtoi (5) ya kalang gat ai Mungshawa gat hpe hpaw da ai. 1957 ning hta KBC ni Manmaw Ginwang a zuphpawng galaw yu sai mare mung re.

SHANGLAWT RAWTMALAN BUNGLI DU SHANG WA AI LAM.

1962 ning, shaning n'nan January ka-ang daram hta KIA Hpyen hpung Du Lamung Tu Jai Ningbaw, Du Tau La Mai Bawk Naw, Gyi Jum Hpi La Mang, Gyi Labang Brang Awng hte kaga hpyen gyi ni n-gun (30) grup yin hpyen hpung ni Kodawng bum Loi Hkyep kaw nna U Lang Pa kaw du yup ai ten Mare masha Du Salang ni hpe shana e KIA Shanglawt masa lam hpe hkaw tsun ai. Zuphpawng galaw da nna hpang shani Bang Htan mare kaw du hkring zuphpawng galaw da nna, Lahkum ga de matut hkawm wa ai gaw shawng nnan Shangiawt majen je shang wa ai rai sai.

Dai shaning, February shata daw hta Du Lamung Tu Jai hpung ni lahkawng lang bai du ai hte Modo lam lawu daw de na mare Du Salang ni hpe Shanglawt Mungdan de gaw gasat ai hta shanglawm “gashaka hkam la ai Mawhke Hka” zuphpawng kaba hpe Bang Htan Lamuga kata “Hka La Yang” ngu ai nam shara kaw Mung Du, No-3 Column ngu shamying ai hte Hpyen Dap hpaw shagreng, Mare Sin Hpyen Hpung (VDF) hpaw, Township, Ninghtawn Organizer du hpaw shabawn nna woi awn uphkang wa sai. U Lang Pa Ginwang Daw kata hta shawng ningnan hpaw hpang ai Ninghtawn Organizer Du ni(1) Du Lahpai Hkun Seng Bang Htan

Du wa shawng nnan na Ginwang Daw Du (T.0) (1965 ning January shata hta Myen hpyen kaw nsin shang mat ai.)

(2) Du Manam Tu (A.T.O) magam lit hpe gun hpai ai.

(3) Tamaw Ninghtawn Organizer Waje La Yam La, (Tamaw Mare na Du Lahpai Hkun Seng hte rau nsin shang, si ari hkrum sai.)

(4) Man Wing Ninghtawn Organizer Lahpai Zau Naw, (Lagat Daw Mare Myen Hpyen kaw 1965 ning hta rim hkrum nna sat kau hkrum sai.)

Komiti ni lit la sa wa ai lam1. Wunpawng Mungdan Shanglawt

Shadip Magam, Magam Dap ni hta, bungli lamang ni hkan nna sunglang nga ai gasi/ga-ngau lachyum ni, rapdaw laili laika ni hta sunglang nga ai gasi/ga-ngau hpe jenjep nna shagrin jat bang la matwa ai.

2. Komiti kaw nna galaw shapraw da sai Ga Htai Chyum (Dictionary) laikabuk ting a ntsa mu mada ai ningmu ni hpe hpaji jaw sa wa ai.

Ndai lahta na gabaw lahkawng a ntsa hta madung tawn mahta nna 12-5-2017 – 5-6-2017 ya laman jenjep matwa ai lam mu chye lu ai.

Jenjep Ai LamOriginal English Dictionary Entry English Word hta n lawm ai Jinghpaw ga si lachyum ni hpe n shalawm ai. Magam Dap hte seng ai, n seng ai ra mu mada ai ni hpe gram, galai, jat bang ai lam galaw ai.

18


(5) Dingga Ninghtawn Organizer Hpauyam Htamung Naw. I ,oi Hkyep Mare.

(6) Je Sawn Ninghtawn Organizer Labang Yaw, (Je Sawn Mare 1963 ning hta Du Malang Hka Li ni hte Manmaw kaw rim sat hkrum mat sai.)

(7) Nam Lim Pa Ninghtawn Organizer Hpaula Bawk Naw, (Nam Lim Pa Mare.)

(8) Loi Seng Ninghtawn Lahpai Zau Awng, (Loi Seng Mare.)

(9) Dangde Bum Ninghtawn Organizer Lahtaw Naw Lawn.

(10) Special Kawng Hkam Circle, Nang Htwi Hkam (Nam Hkan Mare, Du Kaba Lahtaw Zau Dan jan Sam amyu sha re.)

VILLAGE DEFENCE FORCE (VDF) NINGBAW, VILLAGE TRACT COMMANDER (VTC) DU HPAW MASAT DA Al LAM

(1) Nam Sa Zau La - Tamaw Ninghtawnn Village Tract Commander (VTC). (1965 hta shawng nnan Myen hpyen ni kaw ningsin shang laknak jahkrat mat ai.)

(2) Labang Nsen Gam - Man Wing Ninghtawn Village Tract Commander

(VTC). (1965 hta Myen hpyen lata rim hkrum nna Manmaw Htawng hkrat.)

(3) Lahkang Yaw - Dingga Bum Ninghtawn Village Tract Commander (VTC). (1965 hta Myen hpyen lata nsin shang mat ai. VTC hpang daw Ninghtawn Uphkang Du galaw nna hkring sa.)

(4) Du Lahpai Zau Seng - Je Sawn Ninghtawn Village Tract Commander (VTC). (Hpang daw Ninghtawn Uphkang Du galaw nna hkring sa ai.)

(5) Zau Lum - Village Tract Commander (VTC), Nam Lim Pa Ninghtawn.

(6) Nhkum Baw Doi Brang Tawng, Loi Seng Ninghtawn Village Tract Commander (VTC)

(7) Maran Bawk Hte, Dang De Bum Ninghtawn Village Tract Commander (VTC) Uphkang Du bai matut gaw sai.

1962 ning hta Myen Hpyen Dap ni KIA gasat majan hta, Dingga Mare kaw Hpyen Dap jahkrat da ai. 1964 ning hta dawm mat ai. Maji Gung kaba kaw 1962 ning hta shata 3,4 Hpyen Dap hku wa nga yu nna bai dawm mat ai. U Lang Pa, Bang Htan hte kaga shara ni

hta (စစ္ေၾကာင္း) hku shang hkawm nna gayin hkawm mat wa ai ladat sha re. 1964 ning hta No-3 column kata Layan daw de Special Column ngu hpaw ai hta shawng nnan Du Tau Labya Kam Hpang (Mai Kung) hpe Commander lit jaw nna Shwigu maga de Dap hpaw sa wa ai kade nna ai Myen hte gasat hkat ai kaw Du Tau Kam Hpang hkrat sum mat ai. August, September maga hta Lat Du Mali Zup Zau Mai hpe bai lit jaw dat nna Mung Mau Hka mayan Hkaw Daw, Yan Bu de shara la nna Special col¬unm hpaw sai.

MYEN HPYEN NI A MAJAN ZAI LADAT

1964 ning, August shata daram hta Bum daw na Hpyen Dap Kai Htik Hpyen Dap hpe dawm la kau ai hte Bum daw na Myen Shadip Magam jawng ni hpe dawm pat kau ai, htingnut ai ladat shaw ai. 1964 ning, daw hta KIA Column Head Quarter hpe U Lang Pa Mare kaw nga nna Bang Htan, Tamaw Prang kaw 3 Column Rapdaw, Township Rapdaw gap nna nga wa ai ten 1964 ning, December 4,5 ya daram hta Manmaw kaw nna Myen nbungli hte U Lang Pa, Nam Sa, Bang Htan grup-yin hkan e, KIA Dap hte (VDF) hpe garan ginhka wantsi bang ya ai laika (Pamphlet) jahkrat shabra ai hte sadi jaw kumla wa madun masai. Raitim, Shanglawt ni gaw dum chye ai masa n nga ai.

Matut manoi shiga pru wa ai gaw Mung Hkawng de nna Myen Hpyen htu shang wa ai da! nga nna kajawng ai hte (VDF) Hpyen hpung ni mung htunghpau sha hpai nna share hkawm wa masai. Mang Kying Kawng Sa kaw kalang mi hkap gap shangoi, Nam Sa Mare shingnawm kaw kalang mi hkap gap shangoi ai sha re. Myen Dap ni gaw hpa mi dutdang ai lam n nga ai htim gasat bang wa ai. U Lang Pa Mare kaw December 7, 8 ya maga du shang wa nga masai. U Lang pa e du shang ai hpang jahpawt 10:00AM maga de Nbungli kaba lung wa nna malu masha, arung arai jahkrat sharu jaw ai nhtoi (10) ya daram, nbungli kaba (2) hte shani shgu wa jahkrat jahting nna alum ala dap jung nga mat wa sai.

Myen hpyen dap gaw Lagaw lawan Dap (105) ni laklai ai ladat hpyen bawchyawp gaw Tauba bawchyawp hpe galai kau ai. Sumpan Bawchyawp rai mat ai. Laknak shawng e n lang ai laknak hte Machine gun (ငါးက်င္းျမီး), Cabai sinat ni lawm wa ai. Hpyen n-gun, dap dung n-gun raw, Dap Kung 4,5 bai nhtang wa ai n re. Shara la dap jung shagreng nna mungshawa hpe

gahkyin gumdin lam n-gun dat sa wa sai.

1965 niang, March shata hta dap (105) ni dawm mat wa nna, Hk.L.Y (21) ni Dap bai wa galai dung sai. 1965 ning May shata maga de na masing gaw grup-yin mare kahtawng yawng Myen dap jung ai U Lang Pa Mare de htawt gahkyin (စုစည္းရြာ) masing galaw ai. U Lang Pa Mare hte ni kahtep ai kahtawng ni Hka Shang, Hka Hkan Pa, Yesu Kahtawng, Lahkra Daw, Loi Hpang, Jang Ding, Nam Sa, Hin Buk Hka Pra Kahtawng hkan na nkau mi hpe Myen Hpyen Dap (ခလရ - ၂၁) Dap ni mung mare masha ni hpe Myen dap jung da ai U Lang Pa Mare de gawt gahkyin la nna Htinggaw (100) grup yin hpawng de ai "Myen Bawng Kahtawng" shatai la lu masai.

U Lang Pa Mare hte loi tsan ai Kahtawng Mare ni gaw mare kaw nga yang shimlam n nga sai majaw Hpyen hprawng nam rawng Kahtawng (ရြာပုန္း) hku nga mat wa sai. Rau nga rau pra matut mahkai nga ai buga masha kahpu kanau, mayu dama, jinghku jingyu wuhpawng ni Myen Hpyen ni a bawng masha, Shanglawt nam rawng masha ngu nna hpan lahkawng brang rai, matut mahkai n mai mat ai. Grai ni hkat nna tsan gang ai zawn nga ra mat sai.U Lang Pa Mare masha n law ai, rai tim Myen Hpyen Dap a bawng masha ni hku gawt la ai ni law sai majaw shawng prat kaw nna lu da ai laika sharin jawng, Tsi jaw gawk, mungshawa gat ni hte alum ala hpaw nna de nga masai.

KIA Shanglawt mung hpyen n-gun n rawng tim gahkyin gumdin lam hpe n shayawm ai, tara shakang dingyang galaw ai hta Myen Hpyen Dap jung ai U Lang Pa Bawng Kahtawng de kadai nsa lu na. Dai kaw na Bawng Kahtawng masha ni hte matut mahkai hkat ai lam n galaw lu na ngu ai ja dik ai Tara ka-up da nga ai. N hkan shatup ai ni si ari hkam mat wa ai ni mung nga mat wa sai.

Bawng Kahtawng (စုစည္းရြာ) de ai lahkawng ning maga rai wa ai ten hta Bawng Kahtawng U Lang Pa mare a shai wa ai gaw, grup-yin kahtawng masha ni n sa shang sai majaw U Lang Pa Gat mung dut, mari sha masha n nga nna gat ni n tai n byin wa ai masa byin wa ai. Nam rawng Hpyen hprawng kahtawng masha ni mari lu mari sha ra ai majaw kade yakhkak jamjau hkrum tim, bum daw na Bang Htan Gat, Pa daw na Gawk Ngu Yang Gat hpe machyu nna ding-yang gat dut, mari sha lu nga ai. Dai ten na gat sa ai shaloi

19


Myen Hpyen shiga na jang "Gat htawq htawq ai" ngu ai, Gat masha ni hprawng kabrawng ai lam hkring hkring byin ai ten mung re.

1966 Ning, June shata htum wa maga U Lang Pa kaw dap jung ai Myen Hpyen Dap (ဗမာ့ေသနတ္ကုိင္တပ္ေရွ႕တန္းရုံး) kaw nna mungshawa de shiga shabra dat ai gaw "Bang Htan Gat, Gawk Ngu Yang Gat tara n shang ai gat masat dat ai. Kadai n sa dut, n sa mari sha lu na, byin wa ai manghkang Myen Shadip Magam lit la ya na n re ngu ai hpe aga hte ndau shabra ai lam shawng galaw wa ma ai.

Dai ten na masa gaw rau kahtawng raitim, Hpyen hprawng shara kaga ga, Htinggaw (5) rau nga ai pyi n nga ai ayai aya, kaga ga shim dum ai hku nga bra ai aten shada hkrum hkat shiga lu hkat na mung yak ai lam, kaning nga tim lu sha ra ai majaw mung, bai Shanglawt Uphkang Du Salang ni hku nna mung gara hku hpaji jaw matsun na mahkrun n chye ai zawn byin nga ai ten re majaw, Mungshawa ni gaw shawoi na hte maren dingyang Gat dut mari lam rai nga ai.

Myen Hpyen Dap hte Bawng Kahtawng, U Lang Pa (စုစည္းရြာ) ni a ningmu lam Bang Htan Gat, Gawng Ngu Yang Gat grin nga yang U Lang Pa Gat gaw hkraw mat na hpe tsang ai majaw mung, Tara n shang ai gat ngu masat kau sai hpe jahten kau ra ai hku mu shapraw nna masing jahkrat ladat shaw wa ai lam rai nga ai. 1966 ning July (7) ya Laban shani na Bang Htan Gat hpe masing nga nga hte galaw wa ai gaw Myen Hpyen Hpung ni U Lang Pa Hpyen Dap kaw nna Bang Htan Gat kawng gaw Deng (15) grup-yin tsan ai

shara re majaw Hkying 1-2:00 am daram kaw nna pru hkawm wa na ma ai. Bang Htan Gat Kawng shara gaw Bang Htan mare a Sinna mare shingnawm kawng ntsa 1957 ning hta KBC Manmaw Ginwang Zuphpawng galaw yu sai shara kaw gat bai hpaw de ai.

SA WA AI LAM

Mare jahtum kaw Gat de sa wa ai lam gaw lapai maga loi kadawng ai hku lung wa ai lam re. Lahkra maga lamuga nem ai hkaraw maga de KNC Shadip Magam prat e htu waw da ai Loi Hkam de yu wa ai Modo lam dingsa re ai. Lapai, lahkra lam lahkawng yan Loi Hkam Htingnu kaw bai zup ai lam re. Myen hpyen ni sa wa ai kaw mare daw mi koi n mai ai mare lam hku lai hkawm ra ai. Mare masha n nga sai. Du Labang Brang Awng (Lat Gaw Dan) mung gan hkawm ang ai kaw Myen Hpyen ni yan hkawm lung wa ai wa mu nna Gat de na ni na lu na matu, nsen htum hkra marawn jahtau shiga jaw yu ai lam na chye lu ai.

Lapai lahta lam gaw Kawng rai nna tsaw ai. Lahkra lawu lam gaw hkaraw rai nna nem ai. Dai lapran kawng nhkap nhkrem shalawng kaw Kohpri (ေကာ္ဖ)ီ sun galaw da ai. Myen Hpyen ni lahkra lawu lam hku mayun sa wa nna kawng nhkrem Kohpi sun kaw wa gawp makoi rawng nga nna gat masha du ai la la nna Hkying 10:00 am jan de rai na re, gat masha ni hte grai ni kahtep ai kaw nna majoi mi gap sharu sat kau ai lam rai sai. Myen Hpyen ni Gap sharu nna si kadawng, hkala hkrum ai ten Chying Hkrawng Miwa Kahtawng na Jau Gya Sang ngu ai Miwa la wa asak (50) jan wa gaw anhte mungshawa mare masha ni she rai ga ai law... nga nna rawt marawn wa ai hpe mung gap sat kau hkrum ai. Marawn ai nsen hte si mat wa ai nga nna pala n hkra ai sha lawt wa ai ni tsun ai kaw na chye la lu ai. Shi a kanau Jau Gya Yung gaw pala hkra la nna nta de hpai wa ai. Nta kaw si mat sai.

Dai Hpyen hpung ni hta, Jinghpaw Hpyendu Hpaugan Naw Li wa mung (ဗမာ့သနက) kaw (တပ္ခြဲမွဴး) galaw ai. Raitim, 1979 ning (ခလရ - ၁၅) kaw bai ang nna Alaw bum Nga Nga Yang gasat poi hta KIA ni kaw laknak lau (120) jan wa hpai bang ya nna Hpyen bawng tai mat hkrum sai. Bang Htan Gat kaw mungshawa gap sharu ai lam san jep ai shaloi, shanhte Dap ni re, shi gaw Manmaw de yu mat wa ai ten re majaw shi n lawm ai lam htai ai hpe na lu ai. Hpaugan Naw Li wa lawm ai, n lawm ai gaw dai ten e U Lang Pa masha ni chye lu na re. Raitim, wawra ten nsan la sai majaw ya ten hta dai lam chye lu ai masha ni n nga shajang mat sai.U Lang Pa na Buga Wunpawng Salang ni hkan lawm nang ai, kau mi Myen Pawta hku hkan nna hkan mu chye ai ni, arung arai htawk la ai ni mung nga na masai.

MYEN HPYEN DAP NI E DASANG MASING NGA NGA HTE GAP SHARU SI HKRUM AI HTE, HKALA HKRUM AI NI A MYING JAHPAN

Bang Htan Gat Kaw Si Hkrum Ai Mungshawa Ni A Mying Jahpan1. Jan Labang Hka (Di Bu Hka) Asak -80 Bang Htan Mare2. Jan Mahtu Lu Asak-45 Bang Htan Mare3. Jan Hpaulu Roi (Balawng num) Asak -35 Bang Htan Mare4. Jau Gya Yung Asak -45 Chying Hkrawng Mare5. Jau Gya Sang Asak - 53 Chying Hkrawng Mare6. Yang Lau San Asak – 70 Makawk Mare7. Labya La Doi Lu (Mayam Lu) Asak – 13 Chying Hkrawng Mare8. Jan Labya Lu Asak – 70 Tamaw Mare9. Jan Hpou Shou Btu Asak – 80 Prang Lwi Mare10. Labang Lu (Miwa Lu) Asak – 25 Ba Hpang Mare11. Labya Lu (Htamung Lu) Asak – 18 Dun Hkung Mare12. Lachyung Naw Asak – 26 Htang Rang Mare13. Jan Marip Bawk Mai Asak - 23 Loi Lung Mare

Bang Htan Gat Kaw Pala Hkra Hkala Hkrum ai Mungshawa ni a Mying Jabpan1. Jan Tsumhka Lu Asak - 40 Bang Htan Mare 2. Jan Lahpoi Nang Bang Asak - 40 Bang Htan Mare3. Labang Bau Seng Grawng Asak – 14 Bang Htan Mare e 4. Jan Labya Htu Asak - 50 Prang Hkyem Mare5. Jan Pausa Kai Asak – 52 Man Gau Mare6. Tsumhka Roi Asak – 17 Hin Buk Hka Pra Mare7. Tang Bau Roi Asak – 18 Saga Kale Mare8. Maji Naw Asak - 30 Loi Hkam Mare9. Jan Waje Htu Asak – 40 Prang Hkyem10. Slg. Labang Grawng (Bang Htan)

Slg. Labang Grawng Bang Htan Kahtawng

(Myen hpyendap ni wa gap sharu ai shaloi, ladi e hkalaq hkrum.)

20


PALAUNG (TA-ANG) AMYUSHA NI A RAWTMALAN HKRUNLAMKudawng Seng

HPJ : Vol.III, No.II nah matut - VII. Sinat Laknak Garum Jaw Ai Lam

1979 ning February shata hta KIO/A kaw nna PSLA hpe sinat kaji hpan hkum lau (120) hte pala ni garum jaw ai. Dai sinat hpe PSLA Du Kaba Nyi Lung woi-awn nna KIA masat (3) Dap Ba Daju, Jahtu bum kaw wa hpai la ma ai. Masat (4) Dap Ba Daju na Du lamung Gam Seng hte masat (9) Dap Dung na Gyi Jum Labya Naw Din woi-awn ai hpyen n-gun (40) gaw hkrum lam shim lam lit la ya nna wa woi hpai la ai.

VIII. PSLO/A Kata Ningbaw Ningla Gali Galai Galaw Wa Ai Lam

1. 1978 ning April shata hta Ningbaw Kaba Hkan Tawng si sum matwa sai majaw Du Kaba Than Win Ningbaw Kaba hte Dap Awn Daju magam lit la gunhpai wa ai.

2. 1982 ning hta PSLO/A Ginjaw Komiti hta Du Kaba Than Win gaw hpyen gumshem lai (အာဏာရွင္စနစ)္ hte Dap shawa, mungshawa hpe dip sha, dang sha ai hpe n ra sharawng ai majaw ahkyak la rim jep, dawm jahkring shapraw kau nna Salang Kaba Ung Hkai hpe Ningbaw Kaba dang san la sai. Du Kaba Aik Mung hpe Dap Awn Daju (C.S) galai dang san la masai.

3. PSLO ningbaw Kaba Ung Hkai gaw hkamja lam n lu ai majaw Yangong de tsi sa tsi hkawm nga yang 1984 ning hta Myen hpyen a lata hta rim hkrum mat ai majaw 1984 ning hta Du Kaba Hkru Sangai (Kyaw La) hpe Ningbaw Kaba galai dang san la ai. Dap Awn Daju (C.S) magam lit hpe Du Kaba Aik Mung matut lit la

gunhpai ai.4. Ningbaw Kaba Hkru

Sangai mung hkumhkrang hkamja lam n nga wa ai majaw 1986 ning hta hkringsa mat nna Du Kaba Aik Mung gaw 2005 ning Myen hpyen dap hpe laknak ap kau ai ten du hkra Ningbaw Kaba magam lit hpe gunhpai lai wa ai. Dap Awn Daju (C.S) magam lit hpe Du Kaba Nyi Lung gaw 1986-2005 du hkra gunhpai wa ai.

XI. PSLF/TNLA Bai Hpaw Shabawn Wa Ai Lam

1991 ning April shata 21 ya hta PSLO/A ni Myen hpyen Shadip Jahpang (N.W.T) hte gap hkat jahkring, simsa lam la mat ai aten hta Dap hpawm NDF. Kaw shang lawm nna KNU Ginjaw Mannapalaw kaw du nga ai hpyen hpung ni gaw PSLO/A Ginjaw de n wa sai sha Kayin amyusha rawtmalan hpung KNU hte kaga rawtmalan hpung ni madi shadaw garum la ai majaw 1992 ning January shata 12 ya shani Palaung State Liberation Force PSLF hpe hpaw shabawn la nna NDF hpyen hpung hte rau ta gindun nhtawm rawtmalan bungli hpe bai shamu shamawt galaw hpang wa sai.

Laknak lang rawtmalan hpyen hpung hpe Palaung ginra hta ru jung da hpran shara la shamu shamawt na matu PSLA Dap Awn Daju Usa Du Kaba Nyi Lung hte ya na PSLF Ningbaw Ta Aik Hpung yan bawngban jahkrup nna 2007 ning July shata hta Palaung Nation Liberation Army (PNLA) hpe hpaw shabawn, shamu shamawt hpang wa sai. 2007 ning February shata (18) ya hta Du Kaba Nyi Lung machyi si mat ai majaw PNLA shamu shamawt lam hpe myit yawshada tawn ai daram n lu galaw, yakhkak dut dang lam nga mat ai.

Palaung amyusha ni hte buga ginra hpe makawp maga na laknak lang ai hpyen hpung langai nga ra ai re majaw 2009 ning October shata hta PSLF salang ni hte PSLA hpyen hpu-awn Usa nkau mi bawng jahkrup nna Ta-ang National Liberation Army TNLA (တအာင္း အမ်ိဳးသား လြတ္ေျမာက္ေရး တပ္မေတာ)္ hpe hpaw shabawn shagrin la lu sai. PSLF/ TNLA hpe shawng nnan hpaw shabawn wa ai ten hta Du Up Jum Mai Aik Hpung gaw Ningbaw Kaba, Du Up Mai Bung Kyaw gaw Amu Madu rai nna Komiti Salang hku nna Du Kaba Aik Htak, Du Kaba Aung Pe, Du Kaba Tin Win (Hku Lang) ni hte hpaw hpang wa ai.

TNLA hpyen dap hpe hpaw shabawn na masing jahkring tawn lu sai raitim shanhte hpe garum madi shadaw la na jinghku tam yak nga ai ten hta 2011 ning June shata (9) ya kaw nna KIO/A hpe Myen hpyen dap ni htim gasat majan galaw nna laja lana gasat gala majan byin wa ai hpang 2011 ning July shata hkan nna KIO/A Dingda Ginwang

IX. Gaphkat Jahkring, Simsa Lam La Ai Lam

1989 ning kaw nna 1991 ning lapran Sam Mung kaw nga ai rawtmalan hpung CPB, SSA, KDA ni hte kaga rawtmalan hpung n kau mi Myen Shadip Jahpang Magam NWT hte gap hkat jahkring, simsa lam la ai hpung law wa ai. N.W.T Shadip Jahpang Magam ni gaw PSLO/PSLA hpe mung mungmasa, hpyenmasa lam amyu hku jahkrit shagyeng wa ai majaw 1991 ning April shata 21 ya shani Myen hpyen ni hte gap hkat jahkring simsa lam la mat sai. Shanhte a Rung Ginjaw hpe mung Mandung (Man Tone) myo kata de Myen hpyen dap ni a npu kaw htawt nga ra mat ai. Simsa lam la ai 1991-2005 ning lapran Buga Gaw Sharawt Masing hku mungshawa hpe mawdaw lam htu ya, hpaji jawng, tsirung, tsi jaw gawk ni galaw ya ai. Wuhpung wuhpawng a matu jagumhpraw tam hpaga yumga ni loili lu galaw la ai sha re hpe mu chye ya ai.

X. Myen Shadip Jahpang Hpyen Dap Hpe Laknak Ap Kau Ai Lam

N.A.Hp Myen hpyen Shadip Jahpang Lashu Taing Mo, Du Daju Myit Hlai gaw PSLO Ningbaw Kaba Aik Mung hpe Lashu Taing Ruing de shaga la nna laknak ap (laknak jahkrat) kau na lam jahkrit sharim, shagyeng tawn nna Mandung kaw nga ai PSLO/A Ginjaw Rung ni hpe Myen hpyen dap ni sa wang tawn nna sinat laknak hpyu zing kau ya ai majaw 2005 ning April shata 29 ya shani laknak ap kau ra mat ai.

21


Ginjaw Komiti Ting Nyang Up Du Kaba Zau Raw kaw PSLF Ningbaw Ta Mai Aik Hpung, Du Kaba Aik Htak, Du Kaba Awng Pe, Du Kaba Hku Lang ni du sa wa nna KIO/A kaw nna shanhte hpe kalang bai naw pawn ba madi shadaw la na lam tang madun, garum hpyi wa ai hpe KIO Ginjaw Komiti kaw nna garum madi shadaw pawn ba la na matu hkap la sai. 2011 ning November, December shata hta hpyenla nnan marai (48) hpe masat (3) Dap Ba, Wa Ra Bum kaw npawt nhpang hpyen hpaji sharin ya nna TNLA hpyen dap hpe hkrang shapraw hpaw hpang wa sai.

Wunpawng Mungdan Shanglawt Hpyen Dap, Dai Lawn Rung na Du Up Jum Hkangda Gam Seng Dap Hpawm hpe woi-awn na matu masat (4) Dap Ba, masat (8) Dap Dung shara Nampaka Ginwang, Mungmaw Pa Sai Hkau bum shara mi kaw masat (8) Dap Dung Rung ni, jinghku SSPP/SSA masat (1) Dap Ba Up, Du Kaba Seng Hpa woi-awn ai hpyen hpung ni hte rau nga taw nga yang Du Jum Awng Ming woi-awn ai TNLA hpyen hpung ni marai (41) gaw 2012 ning January shata (27) ya shani du yu wa ma ai. 2012 ning February shata (27) ya shani du yu wa ma ai. 2012 ning February shata kaw nna Dai Lawn Rung a matsun hte maren TNLA hpyen hpung ni hte KIA masat (8) Dap Dung na hpyen hpung ni pawng nna Mandung, Namsan bum, Mungwui ga ni hta mung shawa kahkyin gumdin lam galaw hpang wa sai. 2012 ning hta Dap Dung (4) du hkra lu hpaw shabawn la masai.

PSF/TNLA Ningbaw ni matut mahkai wa ai hpe Ginjaw Komiti gaw Amyusha dap hpawm makan dap, Ningtau Lit Hkam, Du Kaba Namdaw Nuk Gan hte Dingda Ginwang Ginjaw Komiti Tingnyang Up Du Kaba Lahpai Zau Raw hpe Lit jaw nna PSLF/TNLA Ningbaw Mai Aik Hpung woi-awn ai hpung hte 16-9-2011 ya hta lawng lam (5) lawm ai myit hkrum ga sadi laika tamasat jawm ka da nna Dinggrin Magam Jinghku Masa hpe matut shangang shakang la lu sai.

TNLA Dap nnan hpaw hpang wa ai hte 2012 ning hta tinang KIA kaw nna sinat hpan hkum lau 58 shawng shale ya ai. 2012-2015 ning ni hta SSPP/SSA ni hte UWSA ni kaw nna mung sinat laknak, machyu pala ni garum jaw ai lam chye lu ai.

Ya yang woi-awn nga ai PSLF/TNLA Ginjaw Komiti salang ni gaw:-(1) Salang Ta Mai Aik Hpung - Ningbaw Kaba(2) Salang Ta Juk Ja - Ningbaw Malai I(3) Salang Ta Hku Lang - Ningbaw Malai II(4) Salang Ta Mai Bung Kyaw - Amu Madu(5) Salang - Ningtau Amu Madu(6) Salang Ta Hu Palang - Dap Awn Daju(7) Salang Ta Hkun Sa - Tau Dap Awn Daju(8) Salang Ta Aik Mau - Kyithkai Dap Lit Hkam ni rai nna kaga Ginjaw Salang ni yawng a mying gaw n chye ya lu ai.

2016 ning du hkra rai yang TNLA Dap Dung (30) hte Dap Ba (6) du hkra hpaw shabawn la nna tinang KIO/A Dingda Ginwang Ginjaw, Nampaka, Kutkai, Mungji, Gang Ming Loi Dau Ginwang shara ni hta tingnang KIO/A hte shara kahtap gala rai nna Dap kapyawn shara jahkrat shamu shamawt nga ma ai. 1963 ning kaw nna 2005 ning du hkra gaw PNF, PSLO/A ni Loilung Namsan bum hte Mandung hte Namhkam lapran shara ni hta shara masat masa galaw hkat let kaga san san nga nna matut mahkai garum madi shadaw, kanawn mazum lai wa ai re. Ya hpang e bai rawtmalan wa ai PSLF/TNLA ni gaw shawng de na hta masha n-gun grau law wa sai. Palaung (Ta-ang) amyusha ni nga ai shara shagu hta ru jung dahpran shara shatai nna Palaung (Ta-ang) Mungdaw gawgap la na ngu ai masa lang nna shara maden shamu shamawt lam galaw wa ai. Tinang KIO/A hte shara nkau hta, mung shawa hpe kahkyin gumdin, yu reng uphkang lam hta dingbai dingna loili nga wa ai hpe jawm jahkrum jahkrup la nna, Dinggrin magam jinghku, mahku mara lam grau ngangkang grin nga hkra matut shakut sa wa na hpe myit mada let ningmu hpe tang madun dat ai law. (Ngut sai)

“…Rawt Malan Jawngma…”Ka shalat:- Wunpawng Salum. (1. 2. 2017).

Mungkan ntsa, Myu baw sumhpa;Mungkan mungdan ting gumhkawng: Kachin ngu ai myu Wunpawng…

Kachin Mungdan k’ta, Chy’sam hpyen ni e dip sha; T’ra n lang Maigan hpyen: Kachin l’mu ga j’hten…

K’rai a ja chyum mungga,Ga shagawp laika (22:28) hta tsun da; Jiwa ni jung ai j’rit sh’daw:Dai hpe k’dai n mai baw…

N t’ra ai maigan hpyen, Kachin mungdan k’ta e len; Dai zawn re ai a m’jaw:Kachin ni Rawt Malan sai law…

Laisai ten na l’bau gawn,Myit mang yawng hpe bai sh’bawn; Ngai Rawt M’lan jawngma wa: Hpaji lam hta hkan nang sa…

Prat dep Rawt M’lan jawngma, Byin tai lu hkra sh’kut ra;Lang ai chyuchyang, gamgu pa: Akyu rawng hkra jailang ra…

Chyuchyang, gamgu hte hpyen g’sat, Myu sha lam hta n-gun dat;M’tsan jamjau tim n hkrit:Myu sha lawt lam hpe ngai myit…

Hpaji n chye ai m’sha,Myi di na hpang hte bung nga; Sutgan ja gumhpraw n su: Hpaji sutgan hta l’hku…

Myu mungdan hpe m’kawp m’ga, Hpaji sut tam hp’ga ga;Hpaji hte mungdan gaw-gap:Rawtjat m’hkrun lam hta kap…

Hpaji hte Kachin hpe m’kawp, Hpaji hte tai hpyen hpe sh’grawp; Kachin myu ni a lawt lam gaw: Rawt Malan jawngma lit re law...

ni hpe Laban bat mi hta lu shamyit kau lu ai zawn, Wunpawng myusha ni hpe mung shamyit kau lu na re, ngu shanhte aloi sha sawn masai. Shanglawt Hpyenla ni hkying manga jan ram sha nga na ngu sawn ma ai. Dai majaw shanhte Peace Agreement hpe kabai kau nna hpyen kasat hpang wa sai re.

Laikaman (1) "MAJAN 6 NING HPRING SHANI" matut

22


Raitim, shanhte myit ai hte maren Wunpawng myusha ni hpe laban bat mi hta n lu shamyit kau lu sai. Shanglawt Hpyenla hkying manga ram sha nga na re, shanhte sawn sai. Raitim Myen ni majan hpang ai hte rau, Shanglawt Hpyenla ni mun masum ram du mat wa sai. Wunpawng myusha ni grau nna zinlum mat wa sai. Hpyen hprawng ni law tim grau nna zimlum mat wa sai, grau nna Wunpawng myusha ni n-gun ja wa sai re. Dai hpe Myen ni n mau tim, mungkan gaw mau mat sai. Hpa majaw Wunpawng myusha ni dai ram zimlum lu a ni? Myen Hpyen n-gun dai ram ja ai hpe gara hku shanhte hkap kasat lu ma ata? nga mau mat masai. Wunpawng myusha ni a mying mungkan kaw gumhkawng mat wa sai.

Shanhpraw la langai mi ka ai hta Myen ni KIA post langai mi hpe zing lu ai ngu ai gaw manu mana (pyrrhic) asum hkam nna zing la lu ai she re, nga nna ka da ai. Dai post langai mi hpe shanhte manu mana asum hkam nna zing la lu tim, KIA ni sum sai ngu ai kumla langai mi pyi Myen ni n mu ma ai, grau nna myit n-gun ja wa ai hpe sha Myen ni mu sai re. Dai majaw laban bat mi hta shamyit kau na ngu, sawn nna kasat ai majan ya, kru ning hpring wa sai re. Dai gaw Wunpawng myusha ni awngdang ai lam hpe mungkan masha ni hpe madun dan ai lam re.

Dai gaw, Karai Kasang a chyeju nan re. Hpyen ni myit ai hku n re ai sha, nhtang hku, Wunpawng myusha ni hpe grau nna Karai Kasang n-gun ja shangun sai, grau nna zimlum na lam jaw sai. Wunpawng myusha ni hpe mungkan masha ni yawng chye wa hkra, Karai Kasang galaw dat ya sai. Karai Kasang hpe Kamsham ai Wunpawng myusha ni grau nna n-gun ja shangun sai. Dai gaw Karai Kasang a mauhpa bungli nan re.

Laikabuk Ningnan Bai Pru SaiManau Wang, Laiza.

Labang Doi Pyi SaTINANG AMYU A LABAU HPA BAW RAI TA?

Wunpawng myusha ni gaw Karai kasang lata san da ai kasha ni re ngu ai lam mung danleng nga sai. Shi a kasha ni re ai majaw she, Karai Kasang Wunpawng myusha ni hpe makawp maka nga ai re. Karai Kasang lata san da ai majaw, Wunpawng mungdan gaw Buddha mungdan n tai ai. Hkrak nga yang Buddha Gautama hpara gaw Wunpawng mungdan hte nau n tsan ai shara Lubini mare, ya Nepal mungdan kaw BC 623 shaning hta shangai wa sai nga ai. Raitim, shaning hkying lahkawng ning jan du hkra, dai Buddha a makam masham Wunpawng mungdan kaw n du lu ai. Hkrak nga jang, dai Buddha makam masham Wunpawng mungdan kaw n du lu hkra hpa pat shingdang ai lam n nga ai. Raitim, dai n teng n man ai makam masham n du lu hkra pat shingdang da ai gaw, Karai Kasang sha rai na re ngu kam ai. Shaning1885 ning hpang, asak hkrung ai Karai Kasang a mungga gaw Wunpawng mungdan kaw du bang wa sai. Ya, shaning 200 (lahkawng tsa) ning pyi garai n du yang, Wunpawng myusha ni yawng ngu na daram, Hkristan makam masham hpe hkapla sai, Karai

Kasang a kasha ni tai wa sai re. Wunpawng mungdan kaw Karai Kasang a mungga du wa ai shaloi, Wunpawng myusha ni hta hpa manghkang n byin ai, shi san da ai kasha ni kaw, shi kawa a shiga du wa ai gaw pyaw hpa she re, dai majaw manghkang n byin ai re. Raitim, Buddha makam masham, Hindu makam masham, Muslim makam masham nga ai mungdan ni hta Hkristan ni hpe manu mana zingri ai, ninghkap ai majaw manghkang grai kaba byin sai. Ya du hkra, dai manghkang byin daw nga ai hpe anhte na lu nga ga ai.

Dai majaw, Wunpawng myusha ni gaw, 1Petru 2:9-10 hpe la nna, Karai Kasang san da ai kasha ni re ngu nna kamsham nga ai gaw grai teng ai re. Wunpawng mungdan hpe Awmdawm shanglawt Hkristan mungdan shatai lu jang gaw anhte kaga amyu bawsang ni Hkristu hpe kamsham nga ai ni yawng pawng nna ndai Sinpraw Tingda Asha (Southeast Asia) kaw Hkristan Mungdan gawgap lu na ahkaw ahkang hpe anhte ni lu wa na re ngu, ngai kam nga nngai law. Dai majaw she Karai Kasang gaw Wunpawng myusha ni hpe n hkrat sum shangun ai, grau n-gun shaja shangun ai rai na re ngu, ngai kam ai law.

Wunpawng myusha ni yawng hte KIA/KIO hpyenla ni yawng hpe Karai Kasang shaman ya u ga. (Naga Won Din gaw Naga amyu shayi langai rai nga ai. Naga National Coumcil (NNC) e magam gun langai rai nhtawm, Naga amyusha hteq mungdan aq matu, dainih du hkra, bungli shakut shajaq nga ai Naga amyu shayi rai nga ai. Yaq yang, shi gaw Thailand mungdan, Chiang Mai e nga let, Naga amyusha yiq-ngam shang taw nga ai. HPJ Editor Hpung)

23


1947 ning, Panglong mare htaq, Bogyoke Aung San hteq rau, munghpawm Myen mungdan shan-

glawt lu wa na mahkau, bumnga rudiq amyusha ni shan-glawm let, taq-masat mahkret wa sai hpe yawng chye nga gaq ai. Kaning re ai shadip magam wa mi rairai, Panglong hpe malap kau n mai nga ai.

Bhamo District Panglong Datkasa SalangDuwa Labang Grawng hteq Duwa Lahpai Zau LawnDum ntah masha niShaning (70) Ning Hpring Panglong Masat NinghtoiFebruary (12), 2017Panglong Mare, Sam Mungh

Kachin mungkan e, dumsa, Jaiwa, hkringwa ninggup gamung hpaji kawq, kungk-yang nga ai Sara Kaba Pungga Ja Li gaw 2017 ning, May shata 25 yaq, dinghtaq gah ntsa nah wundoi matwa sai. Hparat Panglai Journal rapdawq muh gun dinghku masha ni yawng mung, ngam nga ai Sr. Kaba Pungga Ja Li dum ntah masha ni hteq rau, yawnhkyen sharung shayawt lawm nga gaq ai. Shi gaw, Hparat Panglai Journal Editor Hpung e, contributing editor lit hpe gunhpai ya let, HPJ ru-pawt (pintaing) langai hku nna laika ayan ka shalawm ya nga ai wa mung, rai nga ai. Kachin mungkan e, Jinghpaw laikabuk lawq dik ka shalat nna dip shaprawq lu ai wa mung, rai nuq ai. Dainih du hkra, laika lu dip shaprawq lu ai htaq, shi hpe lep ai Kachin kadai mung, n nga shi nga ai re. Ngwipyaw ai sumsing mungh deq ningngai nga nuq gaq!.Hparat Panglai Journal Rapdawq Dinghku masha ni:

YAWNHKYEN SHARUNG SHAYAWT(Sara Kaba Pungga Ja Li)

Panglong ntah dinghku masha ni aq sindai nsenBum Shingnoi

Jinghpaw mungh datkasa salang ni - Duwa Lahpai Zau Lawn, Duwa Labang Grawng, Duwa Waqbaw Zau Rip, Duwa Dingraq Tang, Samah Duwa Sinwa Nawng ni aq dum ntah masha niL-R : Lahpai Hkun Awng, Labang Awng, Jan. Ja Tawng, Din-graq Ahpung, Samah Chyauhpa NawShaning (70) ning hpring Panglong Masat NinghtoiFebruary 12, 2017, Panglong Mare, Sam Mungh

2017 February (12) yaq e, shaning (70) ning naq matwa sai Panglong hpe bai asak jahkrung nna Panglong ntah dinghku masha ni hpe bai jasu sharawt wa maraq ai. Panglong hpe malap mali rai ai gaw, tinang kanu kawa hpe shingduq tawn ai lachyum rai nga ai. Kanu kawa nga nna kashu kasha ni nga wa ai rai saq. Bumnga rudiq amyusha kahkin gumdin ai ma-jaw, Panglong ngu ai nga wa sai. Panglong ngu ai nsen gaw, mungh masa ahkaw ahkang tat jasum kau hkrum ai bumnga rudiq amyumasha ni aq malap n lu ai krawdung hkamshah lam rai nga ai.

Yaq nah NLD shadip magam lak-htak htaq, shaning (70) ning naq sai hpang, bum gah, palayang, maigan sumtsan hkan, agat atsat rai nga nga ai Panglong ntah dinghku masha ni hpe shadaq daq bai hkrumzup lu shangun nna masat masa galaw ya nga ai. Langai hteq langai kabu gara hkrumzup hkat lu ai sumlar gaw, laga sumlar ni yawng htaq, grau na sai!

24


Laikaman (10) de

Toward a Basis for Understanding the Minorities in Burma: The Kachin Example1

Maran La Raw(Offprint from Southeast Asian Tribes, Minorities, and Nations edited by Peter Kunstadter,

Princeton University Press, Volume - 1, 1967, Princeton, New Jersey)INTRODUCTIONThis paper is a preliminary survey of some of the problems which concern the majority-minority relations in Burma. Since this task is extremely complex and sensitive, I can only deal with some basic issues as I see them and then attempt to put the problems in a proper perspective for a clearer grasp. I will first review some typical notions about this kind of problem which are found in published literature, mostly by Western scholars. I will then briefly discuss what I consider to be the primary inadequacies in these accounts. While I will try to state my ideas about more adequate bases for understanding the problems, my primary objective will nonetheless remain a description of the problems as I see them.

The seriousness of the problem of national unity, especially in an ethnically heterogeneous society, has emerged from the tragic experience of post-independence Burmese history (see Emerson 1963:11). In this paper I have taken an anthropological approach to the problems, for the obvious reason that I am a student of anthropology. Another justification for this approach is that social scientists have not indicated to any large extent their interest in this sort of problem in Burma. It is my belief that although this type of approach cannot be expected to produce immediate solutions to the problem, it can substantially illuminate some of the causes and will therefore increase our level of understanding of the very real problems.

The Minority - Traditional Interpretations. After a long involvement in the resettlement of minority groups in the aftermath of World War I, Macartney wrote that "in almost every aspect of social existence there will be found a majority and a minority" (1935:1). The Second World War greatly accentuated the problem, and consequently there was produced a large volume of literature pertaining to nationalism, national minorities, and the adverse affects these may have in the new and developing nations. South

and Southeast Asian nations have received their fair share of space in bibliographies dealing with the topic, so that an extensive listing of these sources is unnecessary in a paper of this size.

One can easily see the general positions expressed by various authors in a few typical statements which we shall consider below. What emerges from these can be adequately summarized for present purposes under three types of positions.

The first position is a broad and sweeping generalization about the obstacles to achieving national unity. The minority elements may be specifically labeled as irresponsible. To Emerson, the problem in a country like Burma is that "the contradiction between the nation as a territorial entity and as a community of the like-minded or racially akin has thrust itself forward as soon as the people came to political self-assertion or achieved independence" (1960:112). Of the divisive tendencies inherent in nationalism, Professor Emerson says : "The coming of nationalism to a society which is politically united but made up of communities divided from each other by race, language, religion, or historical development often works to produce very much the same effect, emphasizing inner cleavages and setting one community against the other" (1963:328).

Brecher is more specific in naming the cause of disunity. “Whatever their distinctive traits, these minorities are often unassimilable and, at best, are sources of irritation and instability” (1963:66). He further observes that other kinds of causes may bring about other kinds of disunity, where the pattern is not cut out to conform to the lines of ethnic differences. These are political parties which contributed to instability because “through their ignoble behavior, almost all national movements ceased to aggregate and articulate interest after independence. Rather, they degenerated into factional strife and corruption” (1963:66).

The second kind of feeling which has appeared in print deals with the historical reasons for alienation among the citizens of the new Asian countries. To this end the writers specifically point at Western colonialism and its legacy as the source of conflict. Purcell states the line which is most common. “The contention of the governments of Burma and Indonesia, in which they are supported in principle by Mr. Nehru, is that separatism of the minorities is merely a legacy of the colonial policy of divide and rule” (1956:236). Kyaw Thet is in complete agreement with the above quotation and cites an example from British colonial policy to amplify the point. “[The British Government] set out to fossilize the many quaintnesses of the primitive culture …. The Kachins were encouraged to consider themselves apart and the administrative system was adapted toward that end” (1956:161-162).

The third kind of position which is expressed by students of this region is the belief that the answers lie dormant in history and that the only thing one must do to find them is to project history into the future and make recommendations in that context. These people attempt analytical interpretation of historical facts and prescribe steps for the assimilation of the minority elements into the national stream of life. One must immediately admit that their interpretations often cease to be analytical treatments of history; they become conjectural and speculative. They merely serve the analysts’ pursuit of personal ideals, and their long-run prescriptions serve the same end. At least this is undeniably the case in the printed sources, where one seeks a basis for understanding the problems of ethnic minority elements in a country like Burma. Thus we read in Tinker, concerning Burma’s constitutional provisions for minorities: “The chapters setting up the state, together with the concession of a right of secession (under stringent safeguards) were inserted to assuage the doubts of

1 I would like to thank Professor Peter Kunstadter for extending the invitation to participate in the conference and to present this paper. I would also like to record my gratitude to him for his suggestions in revising the paper. My sincere gratefulness also goes to Professor F. K. Lehman, at the University of Illinois, for the many stimulating ideas he added while I was assembling my paper. Finally, I wish to thank my fellow conferees for their helpful discus-sion.

GA HTAI CHYUM ENGLISH, KACHIN, MYANMAR ......ahkaw ahkang jashai tawn nga maq ai. Panglong Agreement...

Documents

Transcript of GA HTAI CHYUM ENGLISH, KACHIN, MYANMAR ......ahkaw ahkang jashai tawn nga maq ai. Panglong Agreement...