When one reads a thriller or watches an action movie, the standard finale is the hero and the heroine reaching out their arms to each other after the killing of the killer who was trying to knock them off.

But Gavin Lyall’s Venus with Pistol, which is something of an English reader for me since 1973, is a departure from the rule. The heroine bids farewell to the hero who has been trying to persuade her to stay, saying:

You don’t have to kill him. Not really. We could have done something. But he was coming to kill you, so you were going to kill him first. That’s the way you think….Neither of us will change, but I just can’t live with it.”

The circumstances between the Burman rulers and the non-Burman ruled of course are far from being  the same as this work of fiction. But the theme is still the same: two people with different ways of thinking trying —and failing—to live together.

• One believes we Burmans and the non-Burmans have, since the world began, lived together under our Burman warrior rulers. The correct path therefore is we should continue to live together under the Burmese rule until the end of the world
• The other however says we have been living as different kingdoms/princedoms throughout history. It was only through the Panglong Agreement in 1947 that we have come together. Since then, you have never kept your promise of treating me as an equal partner. Throughout our association. I have been treated even worse than the British (and Japanese) colonialists did, and you still expect me to continue living with you forever?

One doesn’t need to possess superior intelligence to predict how this kind of association will end up. Like oil and water, the only way they can live together is side by side or at different levels, never as a perfect blend like milk and water.

Another difference is that the Burmans elite thinks if the non-Burman peoples, whose homelands surround the Burman dominant Irrawaddy valley  in the middle, are allowed to break away, and worse, ally themselves with stronger neighbors, it would be next to impossible for the Burman to survive long both as a people and a nation.

The only answer to such a prospect is to occupy them, colonize them, and Burmanize them. Definitely not the way Aung San had advised: It is up to us (Burmans) to make them (non-Burmans) feel so good they don’t want to secede.

On the non-Burmans’ side, the need to change old ways of thinking  is the same. A long time friend, much older and wiser, once told me: I have never thought about setting up a separate nation like you and others. My only thought, since I was a student, is about finding ways how to conquer Burma.

Even Gawn Zerng aka Bo Moheng, the late leader of Shan resistance who had fought for independence until he died of cancer in 1991, also said: If the Burmans steadfastly refuse to give us independence, only one way remains: We must take Burma.

Of course, the big question is “how?” But at least both had represented an out-of-the box way of thinking.

Now, in less than 2 months time, the 21st Century Panglong Conference will be held. And the non-Burmans are holding a series of meetings to discuss how they will be entering this life-and-death arena. My hope is that they come out with a new and practical way of thinking.

On the Burman side, there are unconfirmed reports that the upcoming Conference, though using the magic word “Panglong” will essentially have nothing to do with the historic agreement made in 1947:

    Frontier areas peoples will be responsible for frontier areas affairs
    Full autonomy
    Democracy and human rights
    Financial autonomy

My fervent hope therefore is that The Lady will continue to be courageous enough to implement the Panglong Agreement and not make a liar out of her late and honored father, like others had done before her.