|
|
10/30/05 |
                 
|
I would like to dedicate this series to all of our
patriots. One day, when the truth has come out, when
KhuamPenLao is worth more than anything else, then we
will join our hands together in the sacred task of
building our beloved country.
The Introduction: the Lao revolution
It is terribly hard to write about the recent events especially when those events that affect the hundred
thousands of lives. Some had to wander into other lands and some had to stay behind just for the hope of
building their beloved country with their brain and sweat. This was what they and their ancestors had
wished for many, many generations.
Though it is with a tormented heart and with the realization that many sides will try to find fault
with as this writing will affect their interests, I as a patriot and an intellectual have come to the point
that it is time the truth must be systematically told from the perspective of the country. I think I am
equipped with Dhamma, with the intellect, with the source references, and above all else I place the
interest of the country first. That is the way this series is constructed in the line of our ancestors' wishes.
In this introduction, it will be divided into 3 sections:
1. Sources: the weight of the sources or their bias
2. The situation in Laos and outside including the Communist camp and the Capitalist camp
3. What is the revolution? Is the revolution the wish of our country?
In those 3 main sections, I will also write about the lessons from each period, the key actors (including
the ethnic minorities), and the events that could happen depending on the myriad of factors. Lastly, I
will also mention about ideology or the lack of ideology of each participant.
1. Sources: the weight of the sources or their bias
For those of you who take the time to study the history seriously, you will notice that it is not an easy task to know and to understand it thoroughly. Yes, many factors indeed that come into play. There are some that we are not in a position to think that far. Worse yet, the writers in each particular period of history write down in the way that they understood, that they experienced and that their ideology dictate them to do so. This malaise includes everyone including the historians and the experts who always thought of themselves as objective. That being said, the mouthpiece of each camp one just couldn't imagine how distorted their writing would be. Though it is almost unrealistic to nail down the truth for each side has hidden their shortcomings, I still think that the way to the truth is not completely shut down. One thing that I always take as a motto, that is: we have to listen to many sides, many sources. Though they might contradict one another, still it doesn't lessen its value for it allows us to see from many perspectives. Furthermore, it will greatly sharpen our intellect. I would say that though each source might not be able to stand on its own but when we add them together, we will gradually see the truth. Therefore, it is of an utmost importance that we have to read a lot not only from the events in Laos but of our neighbors and of the world also. From the point above, the truth could be glimpsed or even revealed. Still, there is one thing I have to bring it up here. That is the role of ideology. Though obviously we study from the same source, but unfortunately we somehow see things in different ways. In one way, that is good for no unique person can see things exactly the same way therefore the interpretation has to be somewhat different. What concerns me here is that it is neither because of the shallow knowledge nor the ignorance but it is because of the product of ideology constraining us instead. To me, this is what causes most of the trouble then and even now. What amazes me is that both sides criticize one another but fail to see that they are both the victim of their own ideology. In conclusion, in order to search for the truth, it depends on both the integrity of ourselves and the thorough investigation of the sources. I sincerely believe that if we are equipped with both elements above, the study of history or anything won't be completely beyond our reach. Also, from that vantage, we will be in a position to predict how that particular event will unfold. After all, it is not that much different from Buddha did say about the truth "There is a way but is there someone to tread on it?" That is another issue. Before I move on to the second point, I would like to tell you a little bit about myself so that you can see where I came from and judge my writing accordingly. To say it simply, I am a person who is quite inquisitive from the early age on. It became my habit to read a lot especially books about Lao history. I have to admit that whenever I read about about the destruction of Vientiane and of Chao Anou's torture at the hand of the Siamese, every single cell of my body was boiling up. That anger got me to the point that I stopped listening to the Thai songs that everyone around me was so hooked up with. From that moment on, I made up my mind to find out why our once great country has gone down in the last two-three hundred years to the point that we almost have no country of our own anymore. First, since I didn't have many books to read, my understanding of Lao history was very shallow, limited and without any criticism therefore it was quite easy for any side to beguile me. Only when I came abroad and had an opportunity to study both by myself and at the university, my grasp of history was getting stronger. I would say this series is truly a product of determination to find out the truth, to write something of value to my country and to give back what our ancestors have fought for us until today. Below is the list of books I use to write this series. Mainly, I use those many sources to cross check one another. Whatever comes out in the writing is of my interpretation alone based chiefly on the interest of our country first and foremost. Let's take the journey with me for, after all, knowing our country is tantamount to knowing ourselves. Bibliography
Special addition Sabaydii, I have waited for a very long time for the unbiased and comprehensive Lao history from the perspective of the Lao to be written. So far, none in that category existed. Yet, there are some accounts of Lao histories that are quite commendable for they shed some light on certain periods, and some for attempting to give a brief or comprehensive Lao history from the writers’ perspectives, of course. Though those writings are a class in themselves, they didn’t go far enough and didn’t dwell into the matter that lies deep in the core of us. Given the status of the Lao history writing that is both incomplete and skewed to serve the particular interest, I therefore took upon myself to write one in time for the 60th anniversary of the Lao Issara declaration of independence on October the 12th and for the 30th anniversary of the Lao People Democratic Republic on December the 2nd. Some of you might ask why I anchor myself in those key dates. First, it will give me an urgency to understand those two events which amount to the understanding of the recent Lao history per-se. Second, those dates will always remind me of my sacred duty as a Lao patriot to see things beyond my own confine and therefore ask myself why things manifest as they are. And lastly, I am ready to move on to other things in life but before I do so, I will attempt to give back to the people I love and to the country that I care in the form of the history writing. For my part, though mine only captures the recent Lao history of the modern era, this writing will be replete with harsh cold facts, nourished with the Lao flesh and blood and infused with the deepest yearning of a nation craving for a place of their own. The two underlying themes that run throughout the series are: what was really going on? And what could have been given the hindsight? With my intellectual integrity at stake, I will lay out not just what meets the eyes but the fundamental issue underlying those events as well. Still, with the myriad of things that came into play, I will give the benefit of the doubt to all sides but nevertheless compelled to render my own insight where needed. I know that, despite the fact that I have absorbed half a hundred of books relevant to the subject at hand hardly imaginable half a year ago, and would fairly say that the grasp of the recent Lao history is within my reach; it is another thing to write what I learn down. Factors such as time and style of writing will dictate the final product. Therefore, at times, the account will be academic; and at times anecdotal or both. I would add that it is always my intention to combine both elements in this writing for, rightly so, none of them can’t do without the other. At the same time, despite my strenuous effort, I won’t go so far as to say that this writing of mine is the definitive account of the recent Lao history for I don’t think no one can claim that status. But I would say that this is the recent Lao history written from the Lao perspective that is unbiased, that is meticulously researched and that is passionate with the search for the truth. And this, in itself I think, will be worth your time – be it a scholar or anyone interested in the recent Lao history to take a long, arduous but rewarding journey with me.
You can read the Lao revolution series at http://angelfire.com/folk/laorevolution (English version) http://angelfire.com/folk/laorevolution1 (Lao version) Laokao 2. Situation in Laos and around the world (Communist camp and Capitalist camp)
I won’t go that far into Lao history but would like to start with the reign of Chao Souriyavongsa which, to the Lao, was the golden era. Though magnificent as it was, the old problem of governance wasn’t resolved. Succession was still a problem and, no less important, the authority of the central government didn’t extend that far from the capital. The main reason Chao Souriyavongsa could reign supreme was because of the uneasy alliance of various and competing groups under his leadership. In another word, one could say that it was a temporary alliance. Therefore, once he was out of the picture in 1690, the old bickering that pecked our country for quite some time before picked up its steam again. Yet, as no single group was strong enough to impose its will, the struggle for power was intensified. Chao Say Ong Hue who was in exile in Vietnam seized the opportunity to claim power with the aid of the Vietnamese. That was to say it was the first time that the Lao had brought in the Vietnamese into our internal affairs. As we later know, Chao Say Ong Hue wasn’t that strong so Chao Souriyavongsa’s grandchildren, Chao Kingkitsarath and Chao Inthasom, whose mother was from SipSongPanna came down with that force to wrestle power too. With both sides on an equal strength, Siam whose force Chao Say Ong Hue had asked for instead played the role of the wily negotiator by suggesting that the once undivided country be segmented into two. That was to say from the mouth of the river Heuang northward belonged to Luangprabang while Vientiane under Chao Say Ong Hue or Chao Saysetthathiraj II controlled the rest. Then, not long after that, Chao SoySisamouthphoutthankul – another grandson of Chao Souriyavongsa who fled to Champassak took that part of the country from Vientiane. So, by 1707, the sacred Muang Lao wasn’t of one single entity any more but three petty ones. This self-destruction acted like a bait tempting our neighbors to come and give us a final and deadly blow.
So, not long after that, Siam under the leadership of Taksin which was just emerged from the yoke of the Burmese took the rare opportunity to subdue Muang Lao once and for all. In fact, Siam conquered the divided and therefore weak Muang Lao in less than a year before which they hardly entertained the idea of subjugating us for the balance of power between our two countries wasn’t that much different. Why did we lose to the Siamese in 1776? Now, you know the story.
During the Siamese yoke, there was one event that is worth bringing it up here: the fight for the Lao rights of existence under the leadership of Chao Anou in 1827-28. In general, the Siamese yoke wasn’t that harsh. The Lao still maintained most of the rights except only the rights to choose their own king, and the rights to wage a war. In another word, the Siamese yoke was indirect. Only once a year, we had to send them a small token of tribute – mostly symbolic anyway. Then, with the ascension of Rama III, things weren’t just the same. The Siamese began to exert more rights in the traditional Muang Lao in the Isan area by forcibly and ruthlessly integrating Lao citizens into their administration. Because of the inhuman treatment of the Lao Isan at the hands of the Siamese, the Lao couldn’t help but fight back.
That insurrection became the first Lao revolution. Though defeated and, as a result, the country was ravaged with its population hauled across the Mekong river deep into Siam, the Lao still took to heart those heroic struggles even today.
In the 19th century, when the French colonialists arrived, Muang Lao wasn’t of a country any more. Vientiane, the once beautiful capital, was mostly deserted. Only Luangprabang was rested with its own kingship but its authority was greatly reduced. In fact, Siam had sent its own official to direct and control the affairs of Luangprabang. At the beginning to the intermediate phase, Siam just wanted to haul Lao people across the river to replenish their manpower on an interval period. They didn’t think of rightly annexing Muang Lao yet. They only rationalized that since the Vietnamese was growing in power, this empty Muang Lao would become their buffer state – a no man’s land.
Only when they realized that France was extending its grip on both Vietnam and Cambodia, they began to seriously annex Muang Lao by sending the cartographer to make a map of their ‘rightfully’ territories. Here, I won’t talk about how the Siamese had to give up Muang Lao of the Mekong right bank to the French. Instead, I will mention about the advantage and disadvantage due to the arrival of the French into our country.
The good part is that, because of the timely arrival of the French, Muang Lao was saved from the distinction the way both Lanna and Isan had become. The bad part is that the country that we inherited from the French was only half of the once great Lanxang. The other half which was no less of ours had as many as ten times more Lao than the country called Laos. Worse yet, without that other half, Muang lao was subjected to the perpetual dependence and whims of the bigger neighbors. More to the point, when the French put Muang Lao under the French Indochina with Vietnam as their chief concern, it couldn’t be helped but amounting to the capitulation of Lao future at the service of the Vietnamese interest.
It isn’t of a surprise to learn that, when it was time for the French to depart from the scene, the Vietnamese came to conceive every issue of Indochina on the same line as the French. In fact, if it was for the French, the Vietnamese who originally didn’t take much interest in the Lao affairs wouldn’t be too involved as they did recently. To make it clear about the original Vietnamese intent prior to the arrival of the French, let me recap Muang Lao history again. Apart from the 15th century, the time when the Vietnamese came in force to retaliate the Lao ‘betrayal’ (the Lao force sent to help the Vietnamese fought the Chinese instead joined the latter against the former), the Vietnamese consistently had a policy of hands off towards their neighbor to the west of the Annamite mountain range. This hands-off policy was what Chao Anou got when he tried to involve them in the fight against the Siamese. After all, in the Vietnamese eyes, Muang Lao was a mystery land. Some of the Vietnamese emperors were even reported to say that they didn’t know where Muang Lao was located. To be clarified about history, after Chao Anou’s defeat and tragic death, the Vietnamese with the excuse of punishing Chao Noi for capturing Chao Anou and then sent him to Bangkok did indeed annex Muang Phuan (Xiengkhouang) and even changed its name to Tranninh.
During the French rule, Muang Lao was governed minimally by the French because their interest lay in Vietnam, not Muang Lao, therefore if there wasn’t any constraining factors, it was much likely that they would import more Vietnamese workforce into our country. After all, they always considered that the Vietnamese were more of a dynamic race. Since they already placed a significant number of the Vietnamese into the administration of Laos (a factor that thwarts our ability to govern ourselves when needed), this logical step wasn’t that far fetched any more. Only the coming of the Second World War nullified their plan.
There was one more thing about the French mishandling of our affairs. They didn’t take the ethnic minorities into the administration of our country. It could be, as the critics from the left maintained, that they used the strategy of divide-and-conquer or they just wanted to let Laos drift along as they first found her – undeveloped and left to its fate.
Since the ethnic minorities living in the remote country hardly received any attention from the power-that-be, instead they were extracted heavily through tax; they couldn’t help but nourishing a deep hatred and even causing big revolts against the unjust rule. This enmity was not only directed against the French but the Lao Lum who obsequiously served the former and therefore enriched themselves in the process too.
In conclusion, Laos under French not only was underdeveloped in all fields namely education, administration, health, transportation and so on but inherited a problem with minorities who were outside the administrative machine too.
The situation in Laos changed dramatically with two keys events. First, because Siam or the newly named Thailand had a policy to incorporate Laos into a greater Thai state with the pan Thai in the 1930s, France had to counteract that with some generous offers to the Lao. It was during those times that education, administration, health, transportation in Laos and so on were greatly expanded. Second, because of the Second World War by which France herself became a victim to Germany, Japan the latter ally then took opportunity to clamp down its grip in Indochina despite the fact it still allowed the French to rule its colony as usual. The Lao as well as the Vietnamese knew that who the real master was. The French whom we once thought invincible were suddenly beatable. Therefore, when it was the time for the Japanese to leave, we then were in a position to call for a restoration of our independence. That was what we did with the declaration of independence on the 12th of October 1945.
What was going to happen with the next phase of the Lao revolution? You can follow the story in the 3rd section.
Starting from the 19th century, many countries in Asia and Africa had fallen to the colonialists namely France and England. Since these two countries were the superpowers, their interests were of a supreme importance to the newly arrived superpower of the 20th century, the United States of America. The latter’s policy after the First World War was in line with the first two but, at the same time, they wanted to extend their influence into their allies colonies. Their rationale was that the colonialism had become a thing of the past and therefore unsuitable for the new economic system propounded by them.
The new policy gained strength at the close of the Second World War. It was nobody else but President Roosevelt who was fully behind it. He declared that those former colonies had the rights to be independent after the war. This policy had become the hope of many colonies including Laos and Vietnam.
By the end of the Second World War, the U.S. government had acted on that policy by sending the OSS unit (the frontrunner of the CIA) to Indochina to help fight the Japanese and, at the same time, supported the indigenous independence movement. It was highly probable that the U.S. wanted to keep the French out of Indochina but because of the untimely death of President Roosevelt, the new policy was in place. Harry S. Truman, the new president, instead saw the needs of the allies support in the crusade against the growing strength of the Communist movements in Europe. This new change of mind on the part of the U.S. not only brought in the uncertain feeling within the ranks of the independence movements but the ultimate destruction of Indochina as well.
It was said that the havoc wrecked by the First World War had brought about the establishment of the first Communist country, the Soviet Union. Then, with the end of the Second World War, Communism had spread to cover the Eastern Europe and was in a position to turn many countries in Western Europe into the Communist influenced camp too. After all, it was the Communist influenced resistance movements that fought effectively against the Nazi contributing to the latter final defeat in 1945.
Here, the Communist propaganda since the birth of the Communist Russia in 1917 picked up its campaign of bringing down the exploitative Capitalist order by morally supporting various international Communist movements. Ho Chi Minh was therefore sent to Indochina culminating in the creation of the Indochinese Communist party in 1930. It was completely another matter whether the Soviet Union actively supported the international Communist movements but it had become such a precious tool for the Capitalist camp to label any movement demanding the rights for self-determination a Communist threat and, therefore had to be completely destroyed in whatever means they could.
Then, why wasn’t the Communist movement especially the one in Indochina eradicated? Worse yet, it did grow in strength. What was its strength? Was it only inspired by the Communist ideals or was it at its core of a national yearning? Let’s continue the journey in the 3rd section of this introductory part 1 of the series.
3. What is the revolution? Is the revolution the country wish?
To many people, they may wonder what was happening in Laos. Was it another coup d’etat? Or did it an insurrection that went further than that? Here, I will attempt to give you the answer by dividing this part into 3 sections: what is the revolution? The Vietnamese revolution and the Lao revolution.
A. What is the revolution?
This question is of an utmost importance if we want to understand the root of the problem. As we see, a revolution is more than an armed revolt which we can see and measure. It is, above all else, the awakening of the consciousness which demands everything one got. That is the strength of the revolution. After all, nothing could destroy or uproot this conviction – be it time, hardship or any power. What holds the rank and file of the revolution is the common ideology perceived to be of a common interest and greater than oneself. Therefore, it is generally accepted that one committed revolutionary is equal to 10 to 15 opposing adversaries.
Of course, above is just the general principle in which the revolutionaries can freely make use of it. In reality, it might turn out to be just a mask. Nevertheless, it is the belief that counts, that attracts the idealism in us to join in. That means our lives can be sacrificed to that cause bigger than ourselves. After all, revolution has existed throughout history as long as oppression, in one form or another, still exists.
What Communism brings onto the revolution is the effective organization. Moreover, it is based on the idea of equality, of utopia that is hard to resist from the noble side in each one of us. Therefore, it would be almost inconceivable to destroy the revolution because it is tantamount to destroying the raison d’etre of one’s existence. After all, the revolution occurs because there are factors contributing to it such as the injustice. Therefore, as long as those factors still exist, the revolution will live on until the final victory or the total destruction of that movement.
B. The Vietnamese revolution Since the Vietnamese revolution is the root and model of the Lao revolution, I will take some time to address it here.
It was nobody else but Ho Chi Minh or uncle Ho who started and led the Communist led revolution in Vietnam. From his biography, he wasn’t that much different from those Japanese patriots at the start of the Meiji era who left the country in order that they could bring back the skills and knowledge from abroad. Their only goal was to develop their beloved country and, in no time, catch up with the developed countries of the Western World. In the case of Ho Chi Minh, the only difference was that his country was a French colony. Therefore, in whatever means, he could kick out the French, he would do it. As it happened, only Communism could lend their hand to his cause. In another word, he was a Communist not of his intent but of expediency. Originally, he tried to find the answer to the Vietnamese problem in France but it seemed that those French Socialists and Communists just talked and talked but no commitment whatsoever. Then, he went to Russia, the first Communist state. It was there that he found hope to extricate Vietnam from the French colonialism. It was reported that when he read Lenin’s “Theses on the National and Colonial Questions”, Ho Chi Minh was reduced to tears. In his own words, he wrote: “These were political terms difficult to understand in this thesis. But by dint of reading it again and again, finally I could grasp the main part of it. What emotion, enthusiasm, clear sightedness, and confidence it instilled in me! I was overjoyed to tears. Though sitting alone in my room, I shouted aloud as if addressing large crowds: Dear martyrs, compatriots! This is what we need, this is the path to our liberation.” One can say that the destiny of Vietnam as well as ours was set the moment he lay hands on that thesis. Beginning as a patriot, Ho Chi Minh finally became a committed Communist equipped with the ideas and means to liberate his country. And from there, he was assigned to organize the Communist movements in China, Siam and Indochina. Due to his efforts, the Indochinese Communist Party was founded in Hong Kong in 1930.
Maybe, because of the tradition of fighting against the invaders throughout their history especially against the Chinese, independence and political consciousness remained quite high. Moreover, among the three Indochinese countries, it was Vietnam that got the most attention especially education among other things, the Vietnamese was in a better position to govern themselves as soon as the French left the scene. In addition, Ho Chi Minh’s party had a policy that included the landless peasants which constituted the big bulk of the population. No less than that, it also had the policy of alliance with the ethnic minorities which, in the past, were left out of the political solution. More importantly, his party had the central leadership so it wasn’t of a surprise that it would come out on top in the fight for the Vietnamese independence role.
With the arrival of the Second World War, Ho Chi Minh was thrust into the national scene. Because of his patriotism in combination with his simple way of life, his national front ‘Vietminh’ was like a magnet sucking in every stripe of patriots. In another word, it doesn’t matter whether Ho Chi Minh was red or white. The most important thing is the sacred independence.
It happened that, at the close of the Second World War, the U.S. had a policy of letting the colonies determining their own futures. Maybe, to carry favor for the U.S. assistance beyond the war time, Ho Chi Minh even included the American declaration of independence in the Vietnamese declaration of independence: “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights; among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”
Whether it was just a tactic to get some assistance from the U.S. against the return of the French or not, it doesn’t matter much. The fact that the Vietminh was ready to compromise with the Capitalist camp and to avoid the unnecessary bloodshed in itself told another story. After all, Vietnam was a poor country and had a long history of suspicion against their traditional enemy from the north, China.
As it turned out to be, the U.S. wouldn’t play along for they too had their own design on this part of the world. The only alternative left for Vietnam was to fight against the return of the French at any cost. What will happen, let’s follow this series in the next installments.
C. Lao revolution
Since the factors that came into play in Laos were different from Vietnam, the Lao revolution was quite of a limited scope. That is to say the independence movement was prevalent only in the urban area and among the tiny educated class. These people were, for the most part, concurred that Laos should be independent.
In another word, the revolution in Laos had two distinct stages: the first stage began with the declaration of independence by the Lao Issara government on the 12th of October 1945. This revolution was categorized as the revolution of all stripes of patriots. The second stage had a Communist leaning which I won’t touch on it here since it had its own stage and own development. What I want to address in this introductory chapter is the groundwork built on the first stage so that we can fully understand where the Lao revolution came from, what roots it was based on and how it was developing in time.
Since I don’t want to reiterate what others have written about Lao Issara at times quite extensively, I will just mention the main points here. · Our people are as patriot as any nationalities. Of course, the self-interest was intricately mixed in with the patriotism. This is understandable since our country had been divided for a so long at least a couple of centuries long. As we know, the idea of a nation was of a murky nature. In another word, we don’t really know what can hold us, what can act as a deterrence against our self-interest, and what is worth fighting worth. Because of this lack of consensus, we tend to go different ways at the detriment of the national interest. · The revolution, in essence, is the radical uprooting of the backwardness that doesn’t go in tune with the new situation. This is what most of us can’t digest it for this amounts to the challenge of the old habit and the self-interest. Frankly speaking, revolution is not only the seizure of power politically and/or militarily but every aspect of our lives as well. That includes the realm of economic, cultural and existential. This kind of revolution is beyond the threshold of acceptance among the original Lao Issara participants. Moreover, with the growing dependence on the suspicious Vietminh intent in Laos, it became a breaking point for many independent-minded Lao Issara leaders. · The revolution, in itself, was a necessity because our country was already in a critical stage of life and death. Still, it doesn’t mean that the monopoly of the revolution should rest on any particular group especially that group isn’t clear about the intent of their comrade-in-arms. Moreover, revolution doesn’t mean becoming a robot which is against the spirit of KhuamPenLao. After all, this KhuamPenLao has a root deeper than the revolution that is associated with the Communist ideology.
In conclusion, the revolution of October 12th 1945 is the auspicious sign of the revival of the once great LanXang. The fact that we get this far despite all odds testifies that KhuamPenLao will never disappear from the face of this earth so easily. Ideology, importance as it is, is just an ideology and therefore we should not forget this fact. After all, the path we take, noble as it may be, if it brings more harm than good to our country, it is time to think twice for, in the last analysis, the measure of an individual, a movement, and a nation does not revolve around the notion of winning the useless battle but in the prosperity of our country and in the dignity of our people.
The story of the Lao revolution which I am about to present you is both something that we should pay respect to those people who gave everything for that cause and, at the same time, it is a story of tragedy for after 60 years, we are still going nowhere. What is the fundamental issue at stake here? Let’s follow this series in details for we are all a product of this bigger-than-life revolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
This site was last updated 10/16/05
