CNI Article
19 August 2025
Myanmar was established on January 4, 1948, when the diverse ethnic nationalities united to gain independence from British colonial rule. However, today there are differing views on whether the current Myanmar is the First Union or the Fourth Union.
Some believe that the First Union was during King Anawrahta’s reign, the Second Union under King Bayinnaung, the Third Union under King Alaungpaya, and that the Fourth Union began when General Aung San and the ethnic nationalities gained independence from the British on January 4, 1948.
On the other hand, some—particularly non-Bamar ethnic nationalities—hold that the independence gained on January 4, 1948, by General Aung San together with the ethnic nationalities marks the founding of the First Union.
Therefore, when building a federal union in Myanmar, non-Bamar ethnic nationalities argue that it should be a “Coming Together Federalism” system (where different groups voluntarily join to live together), while the Tatmadaw, NLD, and USDP insist it should be a “Holding Together Federalism” system (where unity is maintained within an already existing state). These different perspectives make it difficult for Myanmar to truly become “We Are Myanmar.”
Furthermore, disagreements also exist over the term Myanmar itself.
Article 450 of the 2008 Constitution stipulates that the Myanmar language is the official language. Since “Myanmar language” and “Myanmar speech” refer to the Bamar language, many interpret that “Myanmar” essentially means “Bamar.” Therefore, if one accepts the notion of “We Are All Myanmar,” it may implicitly mean “We Are All Bamar.” This makes it difficult for non-Bamar ethnic nationalities to embrace the concept of “We Are Myanmar.”
Additionally, although independence was officially said to have been achieved by all ethnic nationalities together, some argue that, in practice, it was mainly the Bamar who gained it, thereby weakening the shared ownership of independence.
This also contradicts Article 3 of the 2008 Constitution, which states that the country is one inhabited by all ethnic nationalities together.
Thus, for non-Bamar ethnic nationalities to genuinely accept the idea of “We Are Myanmar,” those who govern the country and those implementing peace must find ways to address this issue.
For example, in India, violent communal clashes between Hindus and Muslims after independence led to the partition of India and Pakistan. Afterwards, Mahatma Gandhi and Jawaharlal Nehru campaigned for everyone to embrace the idea of “We Are India – We Are All Indians.”
In their unifying efforts, Gandhi and Nehru ensured the separation of religion and politics, equal rights for Hindus and Muslims, legal protection against discrimination, and constitutional guarantees of equality for all ethnic groups.
Similarly, the United States, despite being built more on immigrants from across the world than on its native peoples, succeeded in uniting everyone under “We Are American.” This was possible because of a constitution that enshrines equality and prohibits discrimination.
Likewise, India’s “We Are India”, America’s “We Are American”, and Singapore’s “We Are Singapore” identities were all built upon inclusive constitutions guaranteeing equality and non-discrimination.
Therefore, for Myanmar to become “We Are Myanmar,” it must adopt a new constitution that ensures equality, fairness, and non-discrimination for all ethnic nationalities—one that everyone can accept. Otherwise, it may be difficult for “We Are Myanmar” to take root, and in the worst case, even the existence of Myanmar as a nation could be at risk.
In any case, we'll have to wait and see how the future of the country in which we now live will emerge.
