ဗမာ (ျမန္မာ) နိဳင္ငံ ကို အဖက္ဖက္က ကာကြယ္ႀကပါ။ ( ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ ဘယ္လိုိစိတ္ ေပါက္တာလဲ မသိပါ။ )

ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ က အဲ့ဒီလို ေရးခဲ့ ပါသည္။ ျမန္မာ သမိုင္း ဆရာ၊ ဆရာမ တို့ သူစာကို ဖတ္ျပီး ျငင္းႀက (argue)၊ရွင္းႀက (Clarify) ပါ ခင္ဗ်ား။ 

{In this connection, I am reminded (1) that 'the history of Burma' does not imply more than the history of a sequence of socio-political entities that have 'evolved' into what we now call Burma, a product in many ways of British colonial construction. Its predecessors were indeed not 'Burma' or Myanmar at all. 'Burma', or rather bama in the Burmese language, is simply a contraction. In fact, until the European era, myanma pyi did not refer to a nation but merely to the territory where the Myanma people, the 'Burman', lived and were dominant. Rather, the situation was similar to Siam in 1933 when the new government of the constitutional monarchy renamed the country 'Thailand' (pratheed thai). That expression meant not the kingdom, but 'the country of the Thai people'. In fact, before the name-change, the country was known by complex, Sanskritic formal names. As in all the Indianised states in the region, the colloquial practice was basically to use the name of its capital city. Thus the Europeans regularly referred to 'The Kingdom of Ava' (Inwa pyi), 'The kingdom of Pegu' and so on. Following similar principles, a capital city could be called by the formal, ritual name of the state. Ayutthaya was called 'The City of Siam'. In the case of Burma, at least, the formal, 'classical' Sanskrit name did not refer to the central state at all but to the symbolic 'kingdoms' that it contained, such as Sunaparanta and Tambadipa, respectively, the lands of the upper Irrawaddy-Chindwin valleys and those of the lower part of the Irrawaddy valley. Ritually, they constituted imaginary subordinate kingdoms to a king-of-kings, in Pali, an ekaraja. (2) Even in the middle of the nineteenth century, the ruler of Sunaparanta and Tambadipa did not refer himself as the King of Burma / Myanmar in a letter addressed to the then President of the United States. }{Ref; Hlaing, U. Chit, Journal of Southeast Asian Studies; “Anthropological Communities of Interpretation for Burma: An Overview”

Anthropological Communities of Interpretation for Burma: An Overview 

 

အေနာ္ရထာမင္းႀကီး ႏွင့္ က်န္စစ္သားမင္းႀကီး တည္ေထာင္ခဲ့တဲ့ ပထမ ျမန္မာနိဳင္ငံေတာ္ႀကီး ကိုေတာင္ ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ မသိ ေလေရာ့သလား?။  အဲ့ဒါ ဗမာ (ျမန္မာ) အင္ပါယာႀကီး ပါ။ အေနာ္ရထာမင္းႀကီး သည္ ဘုရင္တို့ရဲ့ ဘုရင္ မဟာရာဇာ တိ ရာဇာ (Maha Raja-di-raja) ျဖစ္ခဲ့တာကို ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ လက္မခံလို့ ရမလား။ က်န္စစ္သားမင္းႀကီး ကလည္း ဘုရင္တို့ရဲ့ ဘုရင္ မဟာရာဇာ တိ ရာဇာ (Maha Raja-di-raja) ပါဘဲ။ ေသခ်ာ နဖူးေပၚလက္တင္ စဥ္းစားျပီး သတိတရား ရေစလိုပါသည္။ 
အေနာ္ရထာမင္းႀကီး ႏွင့္ က်န္စစ္သားမင္းႀကီး တို့ က တမလြန္ကေန ဒီလို ေမးေနမည္ ထင္၏။

"ဘဇာေႀကာင့္ ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ ဤ သို့ေရးပါသလဲ။ ဘဝင္မက်ပါ။ "

It was Burmese Empire. The Kings are called Maha Raja-di-raja or the King of kings. It meant King Anawrahta is King of all lesser kings. So does King Kyansitta. Burma was an empire under their rule. Is that not a nation? What U Chit Hlaing wrote was ridiculous and insult to Burma and Burmese people, the citizens of Burma.

လြန္ခဲ့ေသာ ႏွစ္ေပါင္း တေထာင္ ေလာက္က ဗမာ (ျမန္မာ) နိဳင္ငံေတာ္ မွာ ပုဂံ ဆိုတဲ့ျမိဳ့ေတာ္ ႏွင့္၊ ေထရ၀ါဒ ဗုဒၶဘာသာ ထြန္းကား ခဲ့ျပီ။ မဟာယာန  ဗုဒၶဘာသာ ႏွင့္ ဟိႏၵဴ (Hiduism) ျဗဟၼန နတ္ဘုရား တို့ ကိုးကြယ္မႈ လည္းရွိတဲ့ အတြက္ ဘာသာစံု ကိုး ကြယ္ တယ္လို့ဆို နိုင္ပါသည္။  ပိသုကာ ပညာလည္း ထြန္းကား ျပီး ပန္းခ်ီပန္းပု ေတြကမနည္း။ ဘာသာစကားႏွင့္ စာေပဆိုရင္လည္း ျပဴ၊မြန္၊ျမန္မာ၊ ပါဠိ ဘာသာေလးမ်ိဳး ႏွင့္ ေက်ာက္ထက္ ကဗ်ည္း အကၡရာ တင္နိဳင္ ခဲ့သည္။   နည္းပညာမွာ ေႀကးသြန္းတဲ့ အတတ္ကိုတတ္ျပီး ၊ သံကိုမာေအာင္ လုပ္နိင္ ခဲ့ျပီ။  ယဥ္ေက်းမႈ ဆိုရင္လည္း ေတးဂီတ ႏွင့္ ရိုးရာအက ေတြ ရွိေနျပီ။ ယခု ျမန္မာ မ်ား အျမတ္တနိုး ဂုဏ္ယူရတဲ့ ဗမာ့ ေစာင္း ေကာက္ ပုဂံ ေခတ္မွာ ရိွေနျပီ။ ေတးသီခ်င္း တီခတေနျပီ။ ဆည္ေျမာင္းေတြ၊ လယ္ယာေတြ လည္း ဖြံ့ျဖိဳးေနျပီ။ ဒီအခ်က္ေတြကို ေထာက္ျပီး  ျမန္မာျပည္ကို  ျမိဳ့ျပနိဳင္ငံ ( Nation)  လို့ ေခၚနိဳင္ပါသည္။ 

ဦးခ်စ္လႈိင္ဘယ္လို စိတ္ ေပါက္သြားသလဲ  မသိေတာ့ပါ။   .