Burma or Myanmar?

The debate about the name of the country is one that has been going on for some time. however, i believe the focus should not be about political associations, but more about how the name has historically evolved, and what implications that has for the country's future.

Pre-colonialisation, the official name 'myanmar naing ngan taw', literally translated as great myanmar nation, was used in referring to the country internally. Colloquially, the majority burmans refer to the country as 'bamar', a reflection of their own majority in the country. some of myanmar's neighbours have always and still refer to the country in the traditional way: 'myan-tien' in mandarin, 'min-teen' in cantonese. Others with prominent contact with the burman ethic group have, however, referred to the country by its colloquial name, 'pama' in Thai, 'bamar' in Hindi.

As western civilisation became familiar with the country through asian trading routes and the early colonisation attempts of the british, contact was made with the burman majority ethnic group. the west then adopted the name 'burma' to refer to the country, in the same way they adopted malaya to refer to malaysia (malays were and are still the predominant ethnic group) and ceylon for sri lanka (a reference to the sinhalese people).

The military changed western street names, city names and of course, the country's name in 1989 through setting up a language commission, made up of a minority of four linguists and a majority group of military and civilian government officials with no knowledge of the language, a breeding ground for irrational and unscientific decision making. I therefore believe that despite the official reasons given for the change of name, it is the military regime's dislike of interference, particularly from the west, led to its wish to eradicate any evidence of the strongest type of interference, namely colonisation. Some view this as xenophobia - I view it as fervent nationalism, a quality which, in moderation, can be a positive one.

While pro-democracy activists would point out that the initiator of the change is a regime they despise, the fact remains that they are nationalists themselves - why else would they be campaigning endlessly for their country's 'second indepedence'? As a prudent nationalist, one will acknowledge history as it occurred, but will aim to preserve and develop the national indentity that existed before colonisation.

For this reason, I believe the name of the country should remain as myanmar, without any implications on political views.