Let us strangle our souls
It is not only the symbolic Peace Prize committee, which should be abolished, in my opinion. The so called Human Rights organisations worldwide should all be lined up and executed –the rights of humans are quickly fading, we do not implement them in theory or practice, so let us abolish these rights and the very platforms which claim to champion them
“No one told me I was going to be interviewed by a Muslim.” The year was 2013 and the words depict an obviously racist or rather religiously intolerant comment by someone who was about to assume a prominent political position. The response came after a tense exchange of words during an interview about the plight of Muslims suffering violence in Myanmar, during which the leader belonging to the dominantly Buddhist nation denied that Muslims in Myanmar had been subjected to ethnic cleansing, insisting that the tensions were due to a ‘climate of fear’ caused by a ‘worldwide perception that global Muslim power is very great.’ Now the year is 2017 and the systematic persecution of minority Muslims is on the rise in Myanmar, with thousands of victims fleeing to neighbouring Bangladesh. The irony is: that these violent actions are committed by followers of a faith that focuses on ‘personal spiritual development and the attainment of a deep insight into the true nature of life’ – and the infamous words mentioned at the beginning of this text are spoken by a recipient of the prestigious Nobel Peace Prize.
So how does anyone get the Nobel Peace Prize? The. Norwegian Nobel Committee receives nominations, then assesses the candidates’ works, there is an adviser review and finally the Nobel Committee chooses the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate through a majority vote. Not only for peace, but the Nobel Prize is an ultimate dream come true for contributors to many fields, like literature, economics, physics, medicine – to name a few. It is the Peace Prize Laureate category, however, which has received criticism during recent years and the works done by recipients after winning the coveted title have come under fire. Analysts have short listed quite a few who, they suggest, should be required to turn in their medals. The European Union (Nobel Peace Prize recipient in 2012) ‘has disgraced itself with its treatment of refugees; Barrack Obama’s ( 2009) sins of omission have cost hundreds of thousands of lives in Syria; Muhammad El-Baradei (2005) betrayed Egypt’s democracy by backing the military coup ; Kofi Annan(2001) must answer for his failure to act in Rwanda, and for the oil-for-food scandal in the UN; and Henry Kissinger (1973) should arguably be in jail for his role in war crimes in Indochina, Bangladesh and Chile.’ No exception to this is Aung San Suu Kyi, who was awarded the famous medal of peace in 1991 ‘for her non-violent struggle for democracy and human rights.’ Let us briefly follow her trail of non-violent beliefs and actions before and after assuming power.
Influenced by both Mahatma Gandhi’s philosophy of non-violence and Buddhist concepts, Aung San Suu Kyi founded the National League for Democracy in 1998.While under house arrest, she was awarded the Sakharov Prize for Freedom of Thought in 1990 and the Nobel Peace Prize the year after. Using non-violence as an expedient political tactic, Suu Kyi stated in 2007, ‘I do not hold to non-violence for moral reasons, but political and practical reasons.’ In an interview in 2013 with the BBC, she did not condemn violence against Rohingya, Myanmar’s persecuted Muslim community and denied that they are victims of ethnic cleansing. In 2015, the 14th Dalai Lama claimed that he had urged Suu Kyi to address the plight of the Rohingyas and that she had resisted his urging. In 2016, state crime experts from Queen Mary University of London warned that Suu Kyi is ‘legitimising genocide’ in Myanmar. In 2017, more than a dozen of her fellow Nobel laureates, including Malala Yousufzai, have criticised her actions and ethnic cleansing against Rohingyas. Worldwide condemnation continues as Aung San Suu Kyi bitterly complains while claiming to be working on improving the lives of the Rohingya Muslims: ‘it’s a little unreasonable to expect us to resolve everything in 18 months.’ In less than one week, 18,000 of these Muslims have recently fled their homeland of generations to escape violence – 18 is not a figure which flatters Suu Kyi. Pope Francis plans to visit Myanmar later this year, only if it is not too late and while waiting for an urgent and comprehensive response from the world, the ‘ethnoreligious’ remnant continues on the path of possible extinction from its country.
What do we need to criticise – the failure of the committee to ensure that the recipients of its Nobel Peace Prize do justice to the honour bestowed on them and live up to the expectations – and if they don’t, it’s inability to voice concern or declare that the honour remains no more? Should we continue to unleash our anger on Aung San Suu Kyi who possibly to save her defacto leadership in Myanmar consistently expresses the fact that there is no ethnic cleansing going on in her country? Should we join in the tirade with others to voice our concerns for the homeless Rohingyas, but be silent spectators when one questions who would provide them the right to shelter, after granting them the right to live? Or should we criticise ourselves, the fellow Muslims, who were busy sacrificing animals on Eid Ul Azha to appease our God, when humans like us belonging to our faith were being butchered elsewhere – only in a more painful manner?
It is not only the symbolic Peace Prize committee, which should be abolished, in my opinion. The so called Human Rights organisations worldwide should all be lined up and executed –the rights of humans are quickly fading, we do not implement them in theory or practice, so let us abolish these rights and the very platforms which claim to champion them, before the very reason for which they exist – the humans – perish. Let us launch a non-cooperation movement against the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, which states that it is ‘the collective voice of the Muslim world’ and works to ‘safeguard and protect the interests of the Muslim world in the spirit of promoting international peace and harmony.’ Let us strangle our souls, for debating on the rights of the homeless, only after securing shelter for our own selves.
For Aung San Suu Kyi, the wisdom of Buddha and the struggle of Gandhi should suffice as a gentle reminder to her faith and belief, which she thrived on and strived to achieve.
‘The thought manifests as the word: the word manifests as the deed: the deed develops into habit: and habit hardens into character. So watch the thoughts and it’s ways with care, and let it spring from love born out of concern for all beings.’ – Gautama Buddha