Rebuilding Myanmar: The Revolution’s Dream for a New Future

Rebuilding Myanmar: The Revolution’s Dream for a New Future

*******************************************************
Interviewer: Salai Dokhar (Editor-in-Chief, The Kaladan Post)
Interviewee: Salai Yaw Man (Township Administrator, Mindat)

 

Salai Dokhar: Sir, could you please introduce yourself so that the public can better understand your background before the revolution, and your intentions and reasons for joining this revolution after it began?

Salai Yaw Man: My name is Yaw Man. I am a native of Mindat Town, Chin State.
My background is in Education. I did a four-year undergraduate degree in the Philippines and also my Master’s in Education, specializing in Curriculum and Instruction, earning an MEd. After returning to Myanmar, I worked at UNESCO during the NLD government era. Among the various political reforms, I was involved in education reform with UNESCO. When the coup happened, we protested. As we protested, there was shooting, killing, and destruction. So it became clear that this revolution required taking up arms; it wouldn’t be over with just protests and CDM. That’s why I resigned from UNESCO and returned to the uplands. Starting in January 2021, we protested. In March 2021, I returned to Mindat. From that March until today, I have been continuously participating, both in CDF-Mindat and in the Mindat Township People’s Administration (P.A). I am currently serving as the Township Administrator for Mindat Township People’s Administration. Within the Chin Brotherhood, I am participating in the revolution as its spokesperson.

 

Salai Dokhar: Before the coup, you had no connections to political organizations and had an Education background. Yet, when the need to act for the country arose, you chose to come to the frontlines, even to the point of taking up arms. Now, in just over three years, the armed force at the district level has even been able to capture a major town. We feel immense pride in your capabilities. The Chin people and also the public supporting the revolution seem to be taking great pride in this. From your perspective, currently having captured the downtown area and you yourself leading the administrative mechanism, what are your aspirations for the revolutionary mechanism now that you are part of this revolution? Also, regarding the current state of the revolution, how close is it to the revolutionary outcome you envisioned? Please discuss by comparing with your personal experience.

Salai Yaw Man: If I were to put it in one parcel, one package, it’s Peace and Prosperity. It’s precisely for that we are fighting battles and doing this work. Currently, from our situation, it’s somewhat taking shape. However, we face daily airstrikes. They are bombing, probably thinking we will become afraid and discouraged. Because we face these kinds of airstrikes, it means our work is not finished yet; we must continue. As long as the military beasts are not uprooted, we will never be free. Even if they are no longer in our land, our ancestral homeland, Chin State, they cannot remain in Yangon, Mandalay, or Nay Pyi Taw. However, from the scale of success we have achieved now to the nationwide scale, how we will completely uproot the military dictatorship, and how we will bring the peace, prosperity, development, and justice that the people desire—that will depend on emerging political dynamics, and we must move forward based on that.

 

Salai Dokhar: If we look at the whole of Myanmar now, in Chin State, although there are different models like CB and CC, if we look at the controlled territories of both sides and combine them, it could be said that about 90% of Chin State has reached such a state. Chin has achieved this much success. And then, across the whole of Myanmar, ULA/AA, which is widely believed to have clear political objectives and is fighting decisively, also controls about 90%. In Kachin, the situation is also developing with territorial control. So, in this current situation, the responses from neighboring countries or the international community towards Myanmar are raising questions for us. After the recent earthquake, using the earthquake and humanitarian reasons, there seems to be some building of closer relations with the SAC. So, regarding our successes, since you are those with personal experience, truly leading on the ground, the international community’s view on this seems not to align with our successes. What is your view on this, especially regarding the perspective of neighboring countries and their response to Myanmar’s situation? Please analyze.

Salai Yaw Man: It’s not that they are unaware of our current successes; they know. But whether these successes are Sustainable? They are people who look at the long term. For example, in the early independence era, the KNU/KNDO was able to capture about 45 towns. How long did that last? How did it run back? They might think the SAC is gone, right? The SAC is driven out. In the territories from which the SAC has been expelled, what kind of Administration exists? What kind of Public Services exist? What kind of Infrastructure, health, education is there? What about Law Making? I think they will be watching these. The International Landscape, Regional Landscape, political scenery won’t change just based on belief or need. How can they engage with Reality? How can we pull our situation forward? How can they elevate it? How can they connect with it? That depends on how solid our success is, how long-lasting it will be, how much we want to build. We just have to do what we need to do. We are not accountable to them, and they owe us nothing. To become an organization that can practically reform and transform, that the international community can connect with, trust, and work with, we need to build and organize, I believe.

 

Salai Dokhar: That’s where it gets really interesting and, I think, truly practical. Neighboring countries and many international actors go with their own interests. Only Western countries, to some extent, speak about democratic values and help as much as they can. Looking back at neighboring countries, except India, most are authoritarian countries. At this time, among our revolutionary forces, those who want to go towards a federal democratic political system are the majority. Our revolutionary forces are carrying out the revolution based on federal democratic values. Where these democratic and federal values are fundamental, India’s values align, one could assume. On the other hand, during our revolution, especially forces that, while not opposing China, do not want overwhelming Chinese influence, are increasing in our country Myanmar. In that regard, one could say India and our revolutionary forces are aligned. As we carry out territorial control, in northern Shan, China, with its assistance, helps armed groups control territory and manages its interests in various ways—this is what we see within Myanmar’s territory. Similarly, one could say it’s emerging on the Indian side as well. Chin is also gaining territorial control, Rakhine’s territorial control is growing, in Sagaing Region, Magway Region territorial control is also growing, Kachin is the same. Speaking like this, in terms of values, one can say they are similar. So, regarding India’s current stance, normally looking, we see meetings just days ago at the BIMSTEC summit with the SAC. So, regarding India’s current stance and position, are you satisfied with it? In terms of its interests, it acts accordingly, but do its interests align more with the SAC, or align more with resistant groups.

Salai Yaw Man: Speaking about India, there’s the state government and the central government. Even if it’s not politically, the state government helps us a lot culturally. They accept many war refugees. There is a lot of help and support in health, education, and humanitarian areas. They accept and support many in those areas. Around 2025, there have been some small inquiries and questions. There have been statements from MPs in Manipur, Mizoram regarding the Kaladan project and related matters. Both Bangladesh and India, their involvement is not that fast, bold, or open. We see it as them still wanting to watch and wait a bit more. We have come this far without international aid. Look at Mindat, Kanpetlet. We haven’t received a single cent from international organizations. Even NUG, a domestic organization, hasn’t provided any support. We have come this far on our own strength. In the meantime, we must be careful not to get caught between big countries, we must proceed with great caution. If we practically approach such matters, we don’t need to run to China, to India, or to democratic countries. Rather than whether we are satisfied or not with India’s approach, from our perspective, we want to strive for self-sufficiency. We can say we are currently not satisfied with India. On the other hand, it’s hard to say when or how we might become satisfied. If we think simply, if India provided anti-aircraft weapons, if it provided all weapons and ammunition, then if the SAC couldn’t use aircraft anymore, it would completely fall within 4, 5, 6 months. But our political organizations… at the start, I mean, how much will they adhere to the true essence of the revolution? How much are they aiming for genuine, correct development? How serious is our goal? How committed are we? I think they will be watching that from their side. So, I don’t want to say… We also understand that they are somewhat confused, especially a country like India.

 

 Salai Dokhar: Many of us analysts also see that for the final outcome of Myanmar’s revolution, it needs to satisfy India and China. Given the current situation where India’s stance is quite slow, in terms of helping or not helping, without harming China’s interests, India is also our neighbor, a country sharing a border region. India must have some sectors it wants, some political outcomes it desires. To what extent does India have the kind of partnership that can collaborate with our revolutionary forces? Just selling equipment to control the skies would largely get the job done. So, without touching China’s interests… what China wants in Myanmar, what the Myanmar people want, and what India wants… for all to have a correct outcome, if India collaborates with revolutionary forces, what potential benefits could there be? Please analyze.

Salai Yaw Man: We must clearly understand some principles that we must never compromise on for a truly sustainable, enduring situation for both sides, and some principles where we can negotiate with both sides. But on the other hand, if we cannot yet properly control this territory, such things won’t emerge. Put simply, it’s our territories and people. Only when we have good territorial control with the people, and solidarity and support from the people, does it become truly consistent long-term. For example, India has recently started talking a bit more, connecting a bit more. Why? Because control areas exist and are expanding. That’s why they are more interested than before. Whether it’s China or India, as we become truly solid internally, consolidated, and move step by step from a chaotic ground situation to a systematic organization, towards order… if the SAC controls everything, it will impose its order. If the revolutionary forces win, as they gradually stabilize, they will return to order. It can’t be a country of a thousand colonels. After moving back in that direction, we shouldn’t overly rely on India just because it’s a democratic force, nor should we stick to the Western portrayal of China as a communist dictatorship. There is a lot that can be done by connecting well with the entire group. But what we want to say is “don’t put the cart before the horse.” Managing the country from abroad via Zoom meetings won’t work. Only after having local controlled territory, real control, and building real institutions, while providing public services, gradually consolidating organizations on the ground, can we, with a broad-minded, far-sighted attitude, create many situations where China, India, and Myanmar can all have win-win scenarios. I see many such possibilities. But at this time, even if we promise we have that, they will only believe if they want to. They will likely see that we can’t yet control or reclaim our own township. It’s similar to how they view NUG. We must prioritize proving ourselves. Only when we have truly proven our worth, shown evidence, provided proof, then we must and will be able to move towards mutually beneficial cooperation. That’s how I see it.

 

Salai Dokhar: If there is a stage where the SAC and revolutionary forces negotiate at the table, it’s certain that an outcome based on China’s self-interested politics is very likely. The SAC will also stand firm. And then, strong northern Shan ethnic armed organizations will also support China’s interests in one way or another. However, from the revolutionary forces’ side, if the SAC and some EAOs combine and support China’s interest, there is a realm where even our desired federal democracy might have a very low chance of being fully realized. What India wants for Myanmar’s political system, especially India being a democratic neighbor, it would want a democratic country. It won’t get its full wish. Secondly, in a political setting without the SAC, when we sit down, China has strong ethnic armed groups. However, India doesn’t really have forces it has trained, nor does it have significant people-to-people support on that level. India doesn’t have ethnic armed organizations it has drawn for long-term partnership based on principles, nor new revolutionary groups. Even its relations with NUG are almost non-existent. When the time comes for revolutionary forces to discuss separately in a political setting, India’s chance to even have a say, to suggest how Myanmar politics should be, is very slim. Shouldn’t India at least open humanitarian channels for Chin, Sagaing, etc.? If some points could be suggested openly to India, what steps do you think India should take now?

 Salai Yaw Man: The scenario where China also comes and they negotiate with the SAC is also possible. In the scenario where the SAC is completely gone and we, the revolutionary forces, gather and sit to discuss Myanmar’s future, a new federal union state… if it comes to that point, then we don’t need to advise India. If they see that kind of situation, I think they will come quickly to help, thinking they will be left behind.

 

Salai Dokhar: Within your discussion, there are also points about weak systematic connections among revolutionary forces internally. This could lead to a situation where the international community cannot place much trust yet. But as you are an insider, from your own perspective, how much confidence do you have? Some analyses from the international community suggest that if the SAC collapses, Myanmar’s revolutionary forces might not connect properly, and the country could fragment. How would you like to respond to that? As you also analyze, what is your confidence level in being able to handle that?

 Salai Yaw Man: I have full confidence in my own region. Except for Mindat town, we have been continuously managing 195 villages over these four years. There are weak points in connections and mobility. But within these four years, within our region, to ensure rule of law, to prevent governance gaps, we have reached a level where people come to rely on us, lodge complaints. We are working towards that. If the SAC wasn’t continuously bombing, there is a huge pile of work ahead for restoration, travel, development, and operations. We will do it. We have many weaknesses, and many strengths. By discussing all these correctly, openly, and transparently, we can overcome them. We need financial aid, technical aid, resource aid to solve and overcome these. Our weaknesses are things to overcome, solve, and do better. In our region, we have had to resolve all internal oppositions. Meaning, some wanted to solve things by force of arms, wanted to use the organization’s image for personal gain, wanted to act arbitrarily. When we could no longer resolve such things personally through discussion and negotiation, we had to take disciplinary action. We overcame all tensions. In the lowlands, they haven’t overcome that yet. Everyone knows there are problems. Due to various reasons, they only talk. Just talking won’t solve the problem. In practice, they seem to be in a state of ‘he should do it, I should do it’. Looking at such points, the international community won’t trust. We believe there are no shortcuts in this politics. There are no shortcuts to prosperity through short-term methods. We believe only in gradually building from the ground up, step by step, with allies, working together with trust and consultation.

 

Salai Dokhar: Within your analysis, it’s not wrong that the international community’s view of us is still not very clear. There is also the perspective that we still have a lot to prepare. As you are a leader on the ground, it’s quite noteworthy. Also, on one hand, while we can’t say how far the revolution will go, the discussion shows that opportunities exist, giving strength on one side. As a final point, from your perspective, our people are now quite tired. Some are overly worried about disagreements among our revolutionary forces, seeing situations where some seem to have lost SAC support, gone quiet, or hidden. Regarding all these worries, how would you like to encourage them? Also, since the international community seems to be neglecting us, after the earthquake, when SAC leaders met with international leaders, the SAC became more brutal. There are also growing perceptions that the SAC is gaining international recognition. People’s minds are in various states about this. Even among revolutionary leaders, some analyses appearing on social media show some discouragement. How should these be collectively used as an opportunity? How would you like to encourage the people?

Salai Yaw Man: For the SAC, which runs almost a country’s military, over 100 million dollars in international aid is nothing significant. Bombing amidst earthquake devastation… the international community has come to know more, see more of what they are doing. So, some countries have started saying they will help Myanmar, but ensure it doesn’t reach the SAC’s hands, not through the SAC, but reaches the people’s hands directly. Such statements have appeared in world media. The international community has also clearly witnessed the SAC’s brutality. They have clearly seen some situations. Perhaps in their view, they think by bombing us, we will become afraid and stop revolting? Our people are very tired. We cannot shake hands with the SAC and then separate and collaborate. People are tired. The SAC won’t stop bombing just because people are exhausted and they feel pity. They won’t stop bombing, stop using heavy weapons, stop burning villages. We cannot rest, step back for a while, avoid, or be indifferent just because we are tired, losing strength, exhausted. We must continue. We must continue struggling. How dark it is will just be the fuel for how bright it will be in the future. Look at Europe. Look at Japan, Korea. They reached the good part only after overcoming such hells. Looking at our own history, we have never been this close to an opportunity to overthrow the SAC. We control this much territory. We can threaten this much. The SAC has become this unstable, we have achieved this much success. We will not let this opportunity slip from our hands, like water through fingers. The SAC never thought they could even climb four or five steps. They never thought they could reach even three or four steps. Now they have reached nine or ten steps. A new union, a society that is truly ruled by law, that the people truly desire, free from corruption, truly peaceful, stable, developed… that is what I see as our revolutionary dream.

 

Salai Dokhar: India is citing security reasons to build a fence. Building this fence is something even its own citizens oppose. Estimates say it could cost 3 to 5 billion. In your view, do you think India has a better alternative than that, to partner with revolutionary forces? Please analyze that a bit.

Salai Yaw Man: If Chin State alone is stable, if trade operates well on its own, there won’t be anyone specifically going to Mizoram, crossing the border specifically. On one hand, there will be cultural, ethnic, religious exchanges. Once the political situation is good, there won’t be such worries on the Indian side either. If India is worried about drug issues, connecting with local authorities within Chin State, like pdf Zoland, to do drug control, etc., there are many ways to use this money for the real benefit of the Indian people. Helping war refugees coming to the Indian border as much as possible, or properly helping the struggling Mizoram state citizens within the Indian-Mizoram border area, would bring much greater benefits. We see that even state citizens within the state are protesting against it. It’s a miscalculation, an action that benefits no one, not helpful, a wasteful expenditure.

 

Salai Dokhar: Now, we hear that the ASEAN chair met with the SAC, that there are pushes for peace issues. There is a possibility that, after understanding with Western countries and China, revolutionary forces might be forcibly brought to the table for discussions. If that really happens, questions arise about whether to accept. From your perspective, if such a situation arises, would CB, which you represent, and your personal view, be ready to accept such a situation?

Salai Yaw Man: If Western groups and China put pressure together to have such discussions, I don’t think they will agree to discuss without knowing their situation. It will just be stubbornness: ‘I control the whole country, everything belongs to the military, all ethnic groups, states, everything is mine, it’s my place to take, my place to get, I can’t give to anyone, I absolutely cannot compromise.’ Even if NUG and revolutionary organizations want to discuss to a certain extent, I think it will be difficult to integrate, negotiate, and sit at the same table.

Note: This translated text represents our effort to help international observers of Myanmar affairs gain a more accurate understanding of the actual situation in Myanmar. If there are any shortcomings in the translation, we respectfully request that you consider the original Burmese meaning as the authoritative version.